Genesis is Scientifically Superior

God made everything "mature". Adam and Eve, the stars and the trees were all created mature on creation week. God is powerful enough to just speak and the world formed correctly, from absolute nothing. As an example of Adam's God-given maturity, the day Adam was created he already knew language (Genesis 2:22-23). If we visited Adam on the first anniversary of his creation (his first birthday) then how old would he have looked? I guarantee he didn't look one year old. If Adam had the tools to carbon date a rock on that same first birthday, what do you really think would be the result? The earth looks old because it was created mature, just like Adam.

No, the laws of physics can not contradict each other. The second law of thermodynamics (the study of energy) says the natural state of any closed system is chaos. The universe is the ultimate closed system. Even astrophysics (the study of the behavior of celestial bodies) must obey this law so planets and stars could never form on their own.

» PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics?

The moon is an easily overlooked proof of special (supernatural) creation. Consider that it is moving away from the Earth very slowly, about 1.5 inches per year. This does not pose a problem for creationist timelines but this is a serious problem for evolutionists because it would have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. (Remember, evolutionists say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.) Not only would this require the moon to very slowly pass through the Roche Limit on its way to its current position (causing it to be destroyed) but why would it only be moving away at 1.5 inches per year? Creationists have a perfectly sound scientific answer involving the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

» AIG: The moon: the light that rules the night
» Wikipedia: Roche Limit
» HyperPhysics: Conservation of Angular Momentum

Astronomers build models of how the Solar System formed, how each planet formed, chart the planet locations, etc. It is common practice for astronomers to make observations and develop models, then organizations like NASA send satellites to observe closely and confirm or refine the model. NASA sent one such satellite (Mariner) to Mercury in 1974 and got very basic information. Since then evolutionists and creationists have published models of how it must have originated. The superior model would do a better job at describing the real current state of Mercury, should we ever return. NASA sent a second satellite (Messenger) to Mercury which arrived in 2011. Read the article "New Discoveries Delight Creationists" to see how starting with the correct paradigm (assumptions) led creationists to make accurate predictions that embarrassed evolutionists, proving the ability to observe doesn't translate into the authority to invent origins.

» Mercury: New Discoveries Delight Creationists

Evolutionists believe it formed a few billion years ago as a result of dust and gas condensing. This dust and gas also somehow began rotating, which is important to avoid it all just collapsing into a singularity (black hole). There are numerous scientific problems with this evolutionary explanation.

• When rotating objects get smaller, they spin faster. Ice skaters are good examples of this. Based on long-age-models our Sun should be rotating every couple hours, but in reality, it only rotates once a month (every 25 days). This is great for special creationists but a major downer for long-age believers.
• The behavior of gas is represented in Glapeyron's Ideal Gas Law, and the behavior of gravity is represented in Einstein's General Relativity. The problem here is the force of the expansion of gas is greater than the force of gravity. If it weren't, then the Earth would have no atmosphere (it'd all collapse). The Earth has enough mass to keep the gas (atmosphere) contained, but a random gas cloud has no mechanism to achieve critical mass and collapse into a solid in the first place.
• So why'd the gas contract, and why'd it all start rotating at all? If God didn't set it (and all celestial bodies) in motion, then what did? If it was dark matter, then where did it all go? Notice the lack of observable evidence means dark matter is not currently in the domain of "science." Maybe someday we'll find some, but until that day, it's like the Oort Cloud and in the domain of "necessary wishful thinking to explain reality without the God of the Bible." Even if we someday observationally prove the existence of dark matter, that won't automatically prove anything historical, as the ability to observe doesn't give authority to invent origins. Remember, by definition dark matter doesn't interact with normal matter, that's why it's dark. We can't have it both ways, we can't say it causes gas to achieve critical mass by adding mass, then say it took centuries to find evidence for it because it's inert.

The Bible tells us exactly when God created the Sun. He did it on day 4 as recorded in Genesis 1:16. Don't underestimate the significance of this detail. Many cultures in human history have worshiped the Sun. Surely God waited until day 4 to do it to emphasize we should worship the One who made the Sun, rather than the Sun itself, and that the universe got along just fine without the Sun for a few days. God said this explicitly in Deuteronomy 4:19 and 17:2-7, and Job intuited it in Job 31:26-28.

» Wiki: Ideal gas law
» Wiki: Gravity
» Wiki: General relativity
» The Mystery of Dark Matter
» Wiki: Oort cloud

As with biological evolution, there is no "missing link" in stellar evolution. In other words, no one has ever observed anything turn into a star, planet, moon, etc. There is not even any target in space we can point our telescopes to that looks like a star birth in process. Sure there are nebula (the most popular is arguably the Eagle Nebula, nicknamed 'the pillars of creation') but that is just a cloud floating in space with a density measured in molecules per cubic centimeter. The sun supposedly has a density of about 1.4 grams per cubic centimeter. In the context of the Avogadro Constant, the difference in density of a nebula and our Sun is somewhere around 60 with 22 zeros after it. All observed nebula are expanding and none are contracting. Just because nebula and stars are made of the same elements does not mean the two are stuck forever in a "circle of life". Common elements in stars, nebula, and even on earth and in people can also be explained as evidence of a common designer and creator.

Evolutionists think the universe is approximately 13 to 14 billion years old and our Sun is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Clearly not all stars are as old as the Big Bang (there's even a technical term "Population 1" for supposedly more recent stars) so, if we believe those timelines, some stars must have come from some repeatable process. Evolutionists look at stars and are forced to say "they must have come from somewhere, how about nebula?" They have to put all their eggs in this basket. Instead, Creationists can know they were created directly by God just like our planet.

Science is based on observation, but no stars have ever been observed to form. In 2016 I heard the founder of CreationToday.org provide some basic math to help determine if this fact is strange. The European Space Agency estimates that there are somewhere around 10²³ (that's 10 with 23 zeros after it) stars in the known universe. This means in 13 billion years (10⁹), 10²³ stars have formed (more really, since stars have been observed to die in our short lifetimes). Divide this out and on average, hypothetically, we would expect more than 70 trillion (7*10¹³) stars to be born per year. Divide that by the number of seconds in a year and we can estimate to expect there be over 2 million (2*10⁶) stars forming every second. The first telescope was invented about 4 centuries ago. The Hubble Space Telescope has been in operation for over 25 years. We would expect to have seen at least some of the averaged 1 quadrillion (10¹⁵) stars that should have formed during this time, but zero star births have ever been observed. Repeat: zero. Creationists believe all stars were formed on day 4 (Genesis 1:16-19) and none have been born since (Genesis 2:1). Which model fits observable reality better?

» Hubble: Gas Pillars in the Eagle Nebula (M16): Pillars of Creation in a Star-Forming Region
» AIG: The Stars of Heaven Confirm Biblical Creation
» AIG: Taking back astronomy: the heavens declare "creation"!
» Wikipedia: Chemical Mole
» NASA: How old is the sun?
» ESA: How many stars are there in the universe?

You are underestimating the power of an infinite God. When we say that God is omnipotent, we do not simply mean he can spread oceans or withhold the rains if He wants, we mean He can do literally anything. As with Adam, God made the universe mature, which includes when he made a star 10 billion light-years away he also made all the light in all directions at the same time, even the light that was billions of light years away (Isaiah 46:9-10). As with rock and ice layers (below), we can't always correlate size and age.

That said, observable explosions over 6,000 light years away beg a different explanation. Remember Einstein's theory of relativity? It's important to admit we've never traveled at the speed of light and therefore have no observational evidence of what it's like, therefore no proof, therefore only assumptions. See either of the articles below for well thought out explanations, including a problem evolutionists have in explaining something very similar. (After an explosion, the distribution of heat takes time to equalize, and Big Bang models cannot explain why the temperature of the universe has been observed to be uniform. They have an explanation, but it's not based on science, it's based on logic. So if they criticize the Creationist explanation for distant starlight then they're just being hypocritical.)

Note God either says or is attributed as "stretching the heavens" 9 times in scripture (but not specifically in Genesis). If the stars were formed much closer to Earth before God stretched out the heavens, that would help explain this phenomenon.

» Distant Starlight and Biblical Creation
» AiG: Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?

Blue stars burn bright and fast, so they do not last very long (relatively speaking). Yet there are a plethora of them in all observed spiral galaxies, including our own. The trick is they are mixed in with other yellow, white, and red stars which have a much longer estimated life span. Since no stars have ever been observed to form, simple mathematical logic (even a grade schooler could deduce) says this is evidence that all the stars came into existence at the same time and recently.

» Blue Stars-Unexpected Brilliance
» New Stars in Bright Blue Galaxy?
» Blue Stars
» Star Colors Explained

Light has a very small Doppler effect causing it to favor the red end of the spectrum (called a redshift) when it is moving away from us. Astronomers have detected this redshift in all directions from our galaxy. There seem to be two main ways to interpret the evidence.

• The Milky Way is around 2 million light years from the center of the universe (a trivial distance in universal measurements) and the universe is expanding in all directions away from that center.
• The universe is really comparable to a balloon and the Milky Way is in a non-unique location on that balloon. As the balloon expands everything only seems to be moving away from us in all directions. (By the way, this would be a 4-dimensional balloon so that the things on the opposite side of the balloon are not visible except by light that has traveled around the surface of the balloon.)

How we prove which one it is without divine intervention is beyond me, but it sure prompts interesting science to be thrown out by both sides. Remember God created science so it cannot accurately be used against Him (Proverbs 21:30). Whatever the arch-structure of the universe is is fairly trivial, one of the real hearts of the issue is anthropocentricism versus nihilism: is humanity and the earth at the forefront of deliberate divine focus or is it just a needle in an infinite haystack of divine-less random chance (Deuteronomy 10:14-17, James 1:17-18)?

» Creation Ministries International: Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' redshifts show
» Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red Shift
» Wikipedia: Modern Geocentrism
» The Theory of Big Bang - a mistake build on wrong precondition

No. The universe, just like each of us, exists only to glorify the Creator: God. (Psalm 19:1-4, Psalm 103:19-22, Psalm 148:1-6, Isaiah 44:22-23, Isaiah 49:13, Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:28-34). The bigger the universe, the more impressive God is, even if He chose to limit life only to Earth.

The incomprehensible size of the universe speaks to (shouts) the creativity and power of our Creator. Our universe also declares that everything is in relationship with each other in the physical, just as we are also in the spiritual. Examples of spiritual relationship include parents, siblings, teachers, friends, spouse, kids, etc. An example of physical relationship is that time ticks at different rates depending on both how fast you are moving and how much gravity you experience. An atomic clock will theoretically only lose one second every hundred million years. But if you put 3 of them at very different altitudes (one at sea level, one on top of a mountain, and one on a satellite) they'll need continuously synchronized. Clocks in satellites and on airplanes tick differently than the rest of us who are (in a relative sense) stationary on the surface of the planet. The differences are inconsequentially small with our limited ability to affect gravity or travel great speeds, but the physics are clearly there, testifying to God's intentional design.

» Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity at a Personal Scale

Nice try, but this doesn't answer anything. We can't explain life by saying it came from somewhere else, because then where did that life come from? Granted, panspermia can make for interesting speculation and science fiction, but it's still just fantasy. This is just a cop-out in case all the evidence on Earth fails to prove the evolutionist agenda (which it does, but evolutionists don't want to admit it, 1 Corinthians 1:27). By the way, keep in mind there is no such thing as proof for creation in the eyes/​mind of an evolutionist. But this is to be expected because there is no such thing as proof for evolution in the eyes of a creationist.

By the way, until evidence is found that there is life anywhere but on earth, it's not science to claim there either is or may be. Claiming there may be life elsewhere is theological or philosophical, not scientific. Even if we try to invoke probability and statistics, we're just kidding ourselves to create the illusion of credibility.

Absolutely not, and please don't. The belief in a flat Earth is an excellent example of a worldview that has (at best) noble intentions of honoring God but is intentionally interpreting observable science differently (by only accounting for a subset of the evidence) to support their own presuppositions. Whether the Earth is flat or spherical is not a question of origins but observation, and so can be answered in the present without any concern for the past.

In my research I found flat-earthers quote a lot of verses that are inconsequential, and some of their strongest arguments (though not strong enough) are Daniel 4:10-11,20,22 and Revelation 1:7, where a single object is seen around the world, and Matthew 4:8 where Satan takes Jesus to a spot where he can see all the kingdoms of the Earth at once. However, Daniel (one of the major prophets) even told Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:37-‬39 that God had put all mankind under his (Nebuchadnezzar's) rule, and since he didn't rule any other continents, clearly this was a relative statement and not absolute. An educated flat-earther should be ready to counter verses like Psalm 103:12, Job 26:7, and Isaiah 40:22. They probably will, and a spherical-earther won't be satisfied by their answer.

Another passage, Psalm 19:4-6, is quoted by flat-earthers, but is clearly a metaphor (based on both literary context and observable reality). Sometimes the authors could have just spoken from their own perspective. Interpreting perception as absolute reality is not limited to any worldview. For example, while Acts 12:22 is a verse in the Bible, it's never quoted as accurate truth. It is preserved in the Bible as an accurate recording of a statement that was made. (Read the context in Acts 12:21-23.) Similarly, Obadiah 1:4 doesn't have to be interpreted that people had interstellar travel capabilities, and 1 Kings 4:34 doesn't have to mean that Solomon's wisdom was truly known on all 6 continents (skipping Antarctica).

One of the biggest challenges with people who believe in a flat earth is their perception of the scientific method. They believe people who use it to prove the Earth is spherical are corrupt, and therefore the method itself is corrupt. So they may fall back on phenomenalism (physical objects cannot be proven to exist apart from how we perceive them) or solipsism (the self is all that can be known). Resorting to either of these philosophies is just a cop-out. My personal favorite terrestrial proof (that is, one that doesn't involve actually flying up into space) that the spherical globe is the accurate model of reality, is the flight from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile. This is a short flight in reality, but would be the longest on Earth if the world were flat, according to the Flat Earth Society's official map (here).

The whole point of this webpage is to remind us all theology (all worldviews: flat earth, spherical earth, old earth, young earth, infinite earth) must be reconcilable to observable reality, otherwise we are in serious danger of believing fiction. Fiction is not worth defending as fact and can lead to disastrous consequences (Genesis 3:4, Romans 1:25). In addition to the serious theological and eternal ramifications of false doctrine, believing fact can lead to ever-increasing quality of life. The space programs of multiple nations, beginning with Russia, the USA, the European Space Agency, and the Chinese, to name a few, have repeatedly demonstrated our world is spherical by taking photos and videos of the Earth as their ships orbit it, plus other satellites like those supporting the Global Positioning System on our cell phones support a spherical earth. Besides, the mathematical calculations required to put a ship in orbit required the foundational assumption that the world was spherical in the first place. That's not to say there is no mystery in the world. There is a ton of mystery, and truth is often stranger than fiction. Evolutionists, when backed into a corner with a question that can't be answered, will always default with an answer that we haven't discovered everything yet. It's also possible for an evolutionist to raise a point that can't be easily explained by Creationists. We have two default answers. One is exactly the same answer as the evolutionist (that we just haven't discovered enough yet). The other is God is complex and infinitely smart, and didn't/​doesn't have to do everything in a way that makes sense to you and me (Isaiah 55:8-9). But those are just fallback positions and don't count as answers, and the point of this web page is to briefly highlight that we do have many answers and don't have to use the fallback position as a crutch (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

» Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America

Einstein proved that space and time are connected. The concept was so widely accepted that in Star Trek they frequently talked about the "space time continuum." In Genesis 1:1, when God made the heavens and the earth, he laid the foundations for everything. By the second verse, He created matter, energy, light, space, and time. Time ticks on just the same whether you're on the surface of the earth or in orbit or in interstellar space, is unaffected by the sun, though is affected by gravity and speed (but is affected the same no matter where you are and your relationship to the sun.) There is absolutely no scientific challenge with measuring 3.5 literal 24-hour days without our sun and/​or moon.

In the Bible there is not any mention that can be interpreted to even hint at (let alone explicitly state) millions or billions of years of Earthly or universal history. The alignment of the observable universe to what we read in the Bible is important to counter the possibilities (accusations) that

• biological evolution is real
• it was just a false god (in other words, an alien) who came and tricked Moses and the rest (for example, the movie Stargate).
• random people over history conspired to invent both the Bible and God

The verses above, by themselves, only prove one thing: God took 100% of the credit. The science here doesn't prove the Bible, God proves His word through His work, and this resource reminds us that all observable reality aligns.

There is so much evidence that Grand Canyon (GC) was formed by a lot of water in a little time, not a little water over a lot of time. Here's a quick summary and is not exhaustive.

• Bent rock layers: Rocks are hard, so when you bend them, they break. But there are numerous places in GC where the rock layers (many of which are thousands of feet thick) curve up and down, indicating the material was exposed to incredible forces between the time the material showed up in this location and the time it turned into solid rock. If the exact same curve is found in multiple layers then that dictates they must have been bent at the same time. (What's the best way to bend sedimentary rocks? When they're freshly wet minerals that have just been deposited and before they dry out.)
• Polystrate petrified fossils: Trees are organic. Big individual trees may last a couple hundred years. Under the right circumstances (mainly including rapid burial) organic things can petrify. Petrified trees that stick up through the rock layers are evidence for a short-time-scale flood and is evidence against a long-time-scale explanation. Even a petrified tree would not survive millions of years sticking up out of the ground if that is indeed how the layers were formed. And fossils only form when buried, not when sticking up, exposed.
• Erosion: Erosion is an extremely common phenomenon in the observable world around us, with rain and other weather being the primary cause. (Remember, everyone agrees erosion is the cause for why GC is there at all!) But there is no erosion between the layers of rock exposed at GC. When we look at the layers we see a very clear distinction between them, the line of differentiation is very sharp, and their thicknesses are consistent for vast distances. Evidence of erosion would include a blurry/​rough distinction between the layers and uneven thicknesses of the layers (even to the point of some layers possibly eroding away in at least one small place in the over 4 trillion cubic meters of GC.) The lack of erosion is direct evidence of both rapid deposition of the rock and rapid carving of the canyon.
• Cross-continental layers: Also referred to as megasequences, the idea is the same sheets of rocks, which are over a hundred feet thick in most places, can be found consistently over most of the continent. Not only are the rocks present, which would by itself be only slightly more than trivial, but they have similar characteristics. Namely they are sedimentary rocks that demonstrate the same current of the worldwide flood whether analyzed in Arizona, Wyoming, or Kentucky. So this is not evidence in GC exclusively, it's larger evidence GC exposes to us that would be less dramatically visible otherwise.
• No delta: The Mississippi River is a great example of a little water over a reasonably long period of time. At the end of the river (where it dumps into the Gulf of Mexico) is a delta. It is made of about 3 million acres of land that was deposited by upstream erosion (and there are no canyons it supposedly carved out). The delta at the base of the Colorado River is teeny. Yes, we've dammed the Colorado River, but that was long after GC formed.

» Polystrate Fossils & Petrified Wood
» AIG: No Slow and Gradual Erosion
» AIG: Transcontinental Rock Layers
» Wikipedia: Mississippi River Delta
» Wikipedia: Colorado River Delta
» Wikipedia: Grand Canyon
» National Park Service: Grand Canyon
» AiG: Sand Transported Cross Country

For those interested in how GC formed, the short story is probably post-flood waters collected in Canyonlands Lake and Hopi Lake, which ruptured and sent an insane amount of water gushing out, carving the canyon. But explaining how GC formed is not the purpose of this article, so here are some others that try (though I've heard talks in person that go into the science much better than any articles I can find online).

» AiG: When and How Did the Grand Canyon Form?
» AiG: What Carved the Grand Canyon?

In the case of the rock layers, you are incorrectly comparing rock layer formation with tree rings. Trees have been observed to grow a ring for every year they are alive. Rocks are not alive so the analogy is foolish.

When Mount Saint Helens erupted on May 18, 1980, it unleashed the equivalent of 33,000 Hiroshima sized atomic bombs (minus the radiation). This caused ash to be deposited, and after being compressed into solid rock was 25 feet thick in some places. In only a few hours a canyon was carved into these rocks, revealing sedimentary layers resembling those found in thousands of other places around the world. Except these were obviously laid down in an extremely short amount of time, not thousands or millions of years as was once assumed. Thousands of trees were uprooted and tossed into the surrounding ash and lakes, immediately petrifying and still observable in this state today, destroying the previous "given" that long ages are mandatory to form rock layers and petrified plants. The only thing rock layers tell us for sure is what order the rocks (things) were laid down.

Another example of non-living layers are ice cores. "The Lost Squadron" was a squadron of airplanes that got stranded in Greenland in 1942. The crew got away, but the planes had to be abandoned on the ice desert. In 1988 they were found under 250 feet of ice (75 meters), and in 1992 (50 years after they were lost) the "Glacier Girl" was retrieved. It was restored and flown again. There were far more than 50 layers of ice clearly visible while they were going between the surface and the planes. This is evidence that ice layers are not annual conditions, like trees, but are laid down based on weather patterns. Each storm can result in a layer, and of course in Greenland (and everywhere) there can be many storms per year. Using ice layers to estimate age will result in a flawed conclusion because of a flawed initial assumption/​presupposition.

» MSH Creation Information Center
» AIG: 'I got excited at Mount St Helens!'
» AIG: Creation Road Trip
» The Lost Squadron

Fact: the geologic column is observable science. Fiction: the geologic column is conclusive. Fact: the strata can be found in the wrong order lots of places around the world. Fiction: the progression of amoebas to vertebrates can be seen. Fact: all the "evidence" for slow, gradual (or any) change from one species to the next is implied (assumed). The implication of gradual change has its origins in the presuppositions of the person doing the interpreting. Here are some facts that are fundamentally non-helpful to evolutionary interpretation of the fossil column:

• Polystrate fossils exist (fossils that stick up through multiple rock layers).
• Living fossils exist (animals that are found far down in the column so are supposed to be many millions of years old, but are not found higher up in the fossil record so are supposed to have died off millions of years ago, but yet are found alive in the world, unchanged today).
• The fossil column is found all over the world, demonstrates some level of consistency everywhere, yet very consistently contains no examples of transitional organisms nor proto-organisms.
• Soft red tissue has been found in T-Rex bone(s).

We can argue about this observation and that observation, but the fact remains fossils have no birth certificate connected to them. The Biblical interpretation of the billions of fossils around the world (both on the surface and buried in the rock layers) is the flood that happened during Noah's life (Genesis 7:21-23). Remember God made everything good in less than a week (Genesis 1:31) and suffering entered the world only after Adam ignored God's direct command (Genesis 2:15-17, Genesis 3:6).

While creationists (as a category) have strong answers for all the issues, everyone can't have every answer all the time. If a question is asked and we (as individuals) don't have the background to answer it, it's ok to say we are unfamiliar with that specific issue and need the chance to research the facts before giving an intelligent response. If criticism follows that answer, then criticism was the point to begin with, don't take it personally (John 15:18-19). It's important to remember that we don't have a burden of pulverizing all alternative interpretations (remember the last part of 1 Peter 3:15). Our burden is to understand the Word of our Creator and how the facts corroborate it. Our worldview isn't (shouldn't be) affected by how polished or how many holes there are in the alternatives. We're not right because we're creationists, that would be dogma and circular reasoning. Supernatural creation is right and evolution is wrong because both science and history (hence reality) overwhelmingly corroborate this.

» ICR: Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column
» AiG: Unlocking the Geologic Record
» AiG: Order in the Fossil Record
» AiG: Where Are All the Bunny Fossils?
» AiG: Living Fossils
» AiG: Do Fossils Show Signs of Rapid Burial?
» Dinosaur Shocker
» ICR: The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue
» AiG: The Scrambling Continues
» AiG: Solid Answers on Soft Tissue

No. The various creation ministries have an article every few years about another man dug mine that is only a few decades old but is filled with these. Long time isn't required to make stalactites and stalagmites (nor fossils) all that's necessary are the right conditions.

» Creation.com: 1987, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2010
» AiG: 1995, 2011

These were obviously deposited as the result of a catastrophe, otherwise the bodies would have decomposed or been devoured or otherwise dispersed. If the flood were real, we would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. Dino's are just some of those billions of things that we do find. Many evolutionists believe a giant meteor hit the Earth millions of years ago resulting in a radical climate change across the planet. However the evidence fits subtly better if you consider the possibility of the global flood in Genesis being our catastrophe. By the way, the only thing we can surely conclude from the fact that human and dinosaur bones have never been discovered together is that they were not buried together.

Easy, God did not send fully grown dinosaurs to Noah. There would have been no reason to bring fully grown dino's, kids or teenagers would work better for repopulating the planet anyway. (Genesis 7:2-3, 7:8-9, 8:17)

Another easy one. How did many creatures go extinct? We killed them off. A few must have survived the flood because something like them is referenced twice in Job (Behemoth, Leviathan) and the word "dragon" can be found in historical non-fiction. The term "dinosaur" was only coined in the mid 1800's. If you read the King James Version of the Bible you may notice that Isaiah, Jeremiah, and a psalmist were contemporaries of dragons:

• Isaiah 27:1 KJV  hub
• Isaiah 51:9 KJV  hub
• Jeremiah 51:34 KJV  hub
• Psalms 74:13 KJV  hub
• Psalms 91:13 KJV  hub

And Isaiah used the term "fiery flying serpent":

• Isaiah 14:29 KJV  hub
• Isaiah 30:6 KJV  hub

Why am I referencing KJV (published in 1611 AD) instead of something a little more modern? Perhaps the more modern translators thought using such language would be too hard to accept for their modern readers. (Compare to how NIV translates a word into "living creatures" in Revelation but into "animals" most everywhere else in the New Testament. See Heaven by Randy Alchorn, page 379.) In Job 41:18-21, God describes Leviathan as breathing fire (with or without KJV). And curiously in Revelation 13:11 hub, John nonchalantly mentions a dragon's voice. There are actually 34 references to dragons in the King James translation of the Bible (31 in the Old Testament and 3 in Revelation) not that every use of the word has to mean exactly the same thing.

» Amazon: Randy Alcorn's Heaven
» AiG: Dragons: Fact or Fable?
» Were there really fire breathing dragons?

According to Wikipedia, the oldest pyramid is dated about 2670 BC. According to Archbishop James Ussher in his book, The Annals of the World, the flood ended in 2348 BC. Assuming both of those dates are accurate, that's a difference of 321 years. The keyword is "assuming." Ussher based his calculations on the genealogies recorded in the Bible, the earliest of which were very intentional to say the exact age fathers were when their sons were born (Genesis 5:3, 5:6, 5:9, etc.) Like radiometric dating and much of origins science, there's a lot of assuming required to draw any conclusions about ancient history. To think that one or both of these numbers are slightly inaccurate is not a terrible stretch, though I'm not educated enough to say if either or both are right or wrong. Ussher also concluded that the incident at the tower of Babel happened about a century after the flood, roughly 2240 BC. If we assume the oldest pyramid was built a hundred years after that (2140 BC) then the archeologists who dated the oldest pyramid would only be off by 25% or less. Not bad considering how hard it is to precisely date things that happened long ago, and convenient if you want to try to discredit the Bible.

The Chinese say their culture is over 5,000 years old. That would mean it dates back to at least 3000 BC. The evidence for their culture being so old is based on pottery and similar archeological finds, which are again conclusions drawn using assumptions. Assumptions that are no more scientific nor accurate than the fossil column. It's not a stretch to say those assumptions are off by up to 28%. The oldest Chinese writing is found on Oracle Bones which are dated around 1250-1350 BC. This is about a thousand years after the flood, and there is fascinating evidence of the history of Genesis found embedded in the design of the language. My favorite example is how strongly the word boat reminds us of Noah's ark (Genesis 7:13).

Boat
Ark	Eight	Mouth

If you're going to be picky and say the "eight" isn't perfect, the point is not how modern Google renders the characters but how the Chinese did over three millennia ago. My second favorite character alludes that the people who invented the Chinese language also believed in the hope of the savior promised by God.

Come
Man	Wood	Ten

(The number ten is symbolic in Asian culture as completion/​fulfillment/​finality.) The foreshadowing of this character to the events recorded in Matthew 11:28/​John 14:6, John 19:18, and John 19:30 is amazing. A prophet from China (a non-Jew) is perfectly within a Biblical worldview. Remember the prophet Balaam in Numbers 22:4-5 (full story is Numbers 22-24), God's lament to Amos (Amos 9:7), and how easily He went to the gentiles (Isaiah 49:6, John 10:16) and there's Malachi 1:5. But prophecy is outside an evolutionary worldview. These two characters are just my favorites, and there are many more. (See the AIG & CMI links below.)

» Genesis Code Hidden Within The Ancient Chinese Language (YouTube) (found from Contradict Movement)
» God’s Promise to the Chinese
» Wikipedia: Egyptian Pyramids
» Wikipedia: Ussher chronology
» AiG: Ussher's visual timeline
» Amazon: The Annals of the World (But search the Internet for a free copy before you buy your own, the copyright of the original text expired long ago since it was originally published in the 1600s.)
» Wikipedia: Chinese language
» Wikipedia: Chinese culture
» Google Translate
» AiG: Chinese Characters and Genesis
» CMI: Linguistics Q&A: Are ancient Chinese characters related to Genesis?
» CMI misrepresents ancient Chinese language?
» CMI still misrepresents ancient Chinese language?

The conventional logic goes like this: the city of Rameses is named 5 times in the Bible. The city is named after the Pharaoh with the same name, who has plenty of evidence in Egyptian archaeology. The Bible wouldn't name this city if it didn't exist, so the events where it is named must have happened during or after the reign of Pharaoh Rameses. Since there is no archaeological evidence of anything like the exodus happening during or after Ramses's reign, most archaeologists think the Biblical account must have been made up. Let's start with the verses:

• Genesis 47:11  hub
• Exodus 1:11  hub
• Exodus 12:37  hub
• Numbers 33:3  hub
• Numbers 33:5  hub

The rebuttal begins with a disclaimer that we don't know with absolute certainty, but that reality doesn't force us into or away from any conclusions. Skeptics of supernatural creation are quick to claim the Bible was altered over the centuries by people (with corrupt motivation) who wanted it to say something different. Ironically they also desperately wish Genesis had been altered so it would align more with biological and astronomical evolutionary theory. In that case, the evolutionist is wishing the original Biblical text was updated with a fact check (called historical revisionism). So here we actually could have an example of that. It's possible Moses called it the contemporary name at the time in Exodus, and then when the name of these places changed to the district of Rameses, the scribes who copied the texts simply updated the names. This wouldn't have been corrupting nor diluting the message, nor dishonoring the original intent. Compare how the town of Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron) is mentioned throughout the Old Testament (here's a link to a text search). In one case they used one style, in another, another style. It's not necessarily scandalous.

There is a recurring theme in scripture that it was written in the vernacular (the common language of the original target audience). So altering the text simply to keep the names current should be neither a social shock nor a theological problem.

Largely because of those five verses, historians (specifically, Egyptologists) place the exodus during the "New Kingdom." But all of Egypt was fine and happy during that time. It's more likely that Joseph's pharaoh (Genesis 41:14-16) was Amenemhat III, and both the accounts of late Genesis and all of Exodus were during the "Middle Kingdom." There is too much evidence to discuss in this short FAQ, and there's an excellent documentary movie that does better justice to this topic than I could. Check it out on Blu-ray or Google Play.

» Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus (Google Play)
» Wikipedia: Historical revisionism

Glaciers are reasonably agreed to have come from the ice age. What we believe about the ice age influences our interpretation of why they are melting now. To form glaciers we'd require massive snowfall for a long time (so buildup exceeds melt and gargantuan ice sheets can form). To have massive snowfall we'd require massive volumes of moisture in the atmosphere. The land masses don't have that level of water, and no extraterrestrial sources of water have been determined, so we're talking ocean water, specifically. We require massive, unprecedented evaporation from the oceans. Evaporation occurs fastest with hot water. If glaciers are going to form on the poles of the earth then we need a lot of hot water at the poles. There's no good evolutionary explanation for what might cause that, but to a creationist it's really easy. Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 describe that water came up from deep underground. The deeper underground we go, the warmer the water is. And the flood is the Biblical explanation of how Rodinia broke up to Pangea and then the continents we now know. The process of breaking up the planet's crust involved, for all practical purposes, unimaginably massive volcanic activity. Since most of the tectonic plate edges are in the ocean, when the magna came up and hit the oceans it would have had a huge geothermal effect. The volcanic activity on the surface would've created massive atmospheric contaminants that would have cooled the surface, further supporting glacial growth conditions. So here we have forensically (and by process of elimination) determined the origin of the glaciers. Remember, if you don't like where the facts lead doesn't mean a scientist may dismiss them. Making up stories (sorry, "models") of how it may have happened just because you don't like the current evidence is fine, more power to you, but don't call that better science, it's wishful thinking.

Many evolutionists today attribute the recession of the glaciers to global warming. They are less concerned about the glaciers themselves, as novel as they are, and fear global flooding. But more to the point, they fear (claim) the glacial melt is caused by us evil people burning fossil fuels. (Ironically, these are often the same people who might claim that people are inherently good and therefore don't need a savior, like Jesus.) But the glaciers are almost as old as the flood. They would have formed within that first century after the flood, beginning with Genesis 8:1-5, and perhaps peaking about the time of Abraham. That was the peak, and they've been shrinking ever since (so for about 4000 years). Evolutionists believe the glaciers are significantly older than that. The global trend of using fossil fuels at scale has only been since the combustion engine became popular (namely in cars, boats, and planes) about a hundred years ago. A study published in 2008 found 1200 years ago Europe was slightly warmer than it is today, and 400 years ago it was slightly cooler.

If glaciers have been around (and melting) for at least four millennia, and fossil fuels have only been used at large scale for a century, why on earth would we claim that glacial melt is caused by burning fossil fuels? Answer: because it allows politicians to use large amounts of taxpayer money to fund pet projects of their own invention. There's no better problem to be the hero of, than one that's just in your head. So much for man being inherently good (Genesis 8:21). And don't forget Genesis 8:22, 9:11, and Jeremiah 5:21-25 (local floods and tsunami's notwithstanding, due to their temporary nature).

» AiG: A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming
» AiG: Environmental Science (topic)
» Eyjafjallajökull Awakens: How an Icelandic Volcano Shut Down Europe's Airspace
» Loehle Temperature Reconstruction Corrected

Evolutionists are quick to claim people cause global warming and that's what causes the Sahara to expand, ruining conventionally usable land. The Biblical perspective also involves man's fault, but in a completely different way. Man's rebellion against his Creator grieved God (Genesis 3:6-7, 6:5-6) and eventually He decided to send a worldwide flood (Genesis 6:7). After the flood (and certainly because of it) we had radical climate change, including most notably the ice age. The ice age was (as described in more detail above) caused by the large scale evaporation of unusually warm oceans. The same high level of atmospheric moisture that fueled the glaciers could have supported the rain forests, including those of Africa. The Earth's oceans have since cooled, causing less oceanic evaporation, glacial recession, and desert expansion. While this disaster was caused by man, it wasn't the cars we drive nor how much stuff we ship across the oceans, it's our rebellion against our Maker (Jeremiah 9:12-14, 50:38). Ironically, the problems espoused by global warming advocates are actually caused by global cooling.

» AiG: A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming

It's not weird or necessarily prehistoric that people lived in caves. They have done it in recorded history. Just because an atheist claims what they find in a cave is 20,000 or 100,000 years old doesn't mean it is. There were many cavemen in the Bible:

• Genesis 19:28-30   Lot
• Joshua 10:16-27   Kings
• Judges 15:6-11   Samson
• 1 Samuel 22:1   David
• 1 Samuel 24   David again (notice PS 57 and PS 142)
• 1 Kings 19:7-13   Elijah

Besides being called cavemen, another less common technical term is a troglodyte. Other, non-Biblical, famous cave dwellers include (but are not limited to):

• Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA
• Petra, Jordan
• Göreme Tarihi Milli Parkı, Turkey

As with Neanderthals, just because they don't exist anymore, or in this case, the practice of living in caves has largely been culturally abandoned, doesn't automatically mean they exclusively existed prehistorically. Like the fossil column, people who claim cavemen only lived tens of thousands of years ago simply prefer to believe it, or it's all they know and they've never thought critically about what they were taught. Cavemen fit perfectly fine into a Biblical worldview with only a few thousand years of human history. By the way, where did all the Neanderthals go? Same answer as for the dinosaurs: the rest of us killed them off.

In Genesis 1:9, God is attributed as saying "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear" (NIV). (Here's a link to a bunch of parallel translations, and here's a link to the original Hebrew.) Before we circumvented the globe and made maps of all the continents, we would have had no reason to believe all the continents at one time fit together. But now we do. Evolutionists and Creationists alike believe that the evidence points to all the continents of the world being combined in one supercontinent in the past. Perhaps I'll elaborate on Rodinia and Pangea someday...

If the Bible, and more specifically Genesis 1, was written by regular con artists of the day, they wouldn't have had reason to pretend God said the waters (and therefore, the land) should be "gathered to one place." Even by Moses's day there were nations that had impressive navy's. If mere mortals claimed that there was only one ocean to begin with, the only reason they'd have to claim the one ocean was to try to convince people of a total lie, just to test how gullible they were. Still today, when we observe the world, it'd be laughable to say the waters are in "one place." But before the world wide flood, when there was only one supercontinent on the planet, then there would necessarily have only been one superocean, too. God is omniscient, plus He was there, and the more we learn about science the more that reality is confirmed.

• Job 26:8  hub
• Job 28:24-26  hub
• Job 36:27-29  hub
• Psalm 135:7  hub
• Ecclesiastes 1:6-7  hub
• Isaiah 55:9-11  hub
• Daniel 2:43  hub
• Amos 5:8  hub
• John 1:3  hub
• Colossians 1:16-17  hub
• Hebrews 3:4  hub
• Hebrews 11:3  hub

The half-life of Carbon 14 is shorter than 6,000 years so its maximum capability for dating is less than 60,000 years. If someone says they used Carbon 14 to date something as hundreds of thousands or millions of years old then they don't know what they're talking about. Carbon 14 is just one type of radiometric dating, there are others. All radiation-based dating methods are based on four assumptions:

1. We know how much of radioactive isotope "α" (alpha) was originally present.
2. We know how much of the inert daughter mineral "β" (beta) was originally present.
3. We know the rate of decay from isotope "α" to inert "β".
4. We know the radiating process was constant and uncontaminated.

Error on any one of these four assumptions will invalidate any conclusions. How would we know any of them for sure if we weren't there the whole time? We can't, we can only hypothesize/​theorize (both are fancy, adult synonyms of the word "guess"). But remember, God made Adam and Eve, the stars and the trees mature, so if we were to Carbon date a rock on day 10, would the process really have provided the intended result? God's not trying to trick us, this just shows His awesome power. If Adam and the rest of the life forms God created had been created as zygotes and seeds, it would've taken years for them to mature. But God wanted to enjoy his creation on day 7, so that's one reason (He surely had many) He created everything mature. Contrast the Bible was written by people who were there or were told what to write by another eyewitness. (Job 38:4, Luke 1:2, 1 John 1:1-3)

Radiation was essentially discovered in 1896 (by Henri Becquerel and Marie Curie) and using it for dating began in the 1940s. Darwin published his infamous book, The Origin of Species, in 1859. Evolutionists already knew what they wanted this new dating system to conclude (just as they had with the fossil record). The fact that it is a house of cards, based on extravagant assumptions, is dismissed by all of them, and refuted by none.

» QCCSA: The end of long age radiometric dating
» Carbon 14 Dating Calculator

Water is one of those things that is required for life as we know it. Without it life does not exist, period. The human body is more than half water. At different ages and different situations in life the percentage varies from 55-75%. Have you ever noticed that water is almost the only compound found in nature that expands when it freezes? This is not just random trivia. Consider what would happen to our ecosystem if lakes and ponds freeze from the bottom up instead of from the top down? As it is, the ice forms insulation and the life in that body of water is not completely destroyed (compare to the "frost line" in the ground where everything dies after a frost). Coincidence, dumb luck? I think not. The word "water" is found 436 times in the NIV translation, most notably its association with baptism (mentioned 26 times) including the flood in Noah's time. God invented water, and everything else. (Job 38:29-30)

If there really was a world wide flood, what would the evidence be? Besides billions of dead things burried in rock layers all over the earth, there would be a lot of water. There is estimated over 300 million cubic miles (over a billion cubic kilometers) of water on our planet today. Where'd it all come from? Evolutionists assume asteroids (meteors) are responsible, and even if they each brought a cubic mile, whoa, that'd be a lot of big meteors. We know God created the water, and in fact the earth was at first either all water or 100% covered in water (Genesis 1:2, 1:6-7, 1:9-10). Being mentioned in the second verse of the first chapter means it was one of the first things God made, and it was the first specifically named thing (besides the earth which was a vague concept at this point, because it was "formless," and the universe, which is also pretty vague). Today our planet is 71% covered by water (note, covered by is not the same thing as consisting of). Is it a coincidence or something more that the the human body and the surface of the earth are so much water? Also note, water was one of the first things God made and humanity was the last. Water is also special because it's one of the fundamental things only implied that God made. God made everything (Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-3) but the fundamentals like light, land, plants, animals, stars, etc. were explicitly described as "God said let there be." The fundamental concepts of space, time, matter, energy, and information were only implied, as was water.

» What Liquid, Aside From Water, Expands When Frozen?
» How Much of Your Body Is Water?
» How Much Water is There on Earth?

Many of the states in the USA have passed laws relating to the levels of CO₂ our engines should emit. The story goes that too much is harmful to both humans and the climate.

• Miners know the safety limit in an underground mine is 5,000ppm. Between 1960 and 2010 the ppm in our atmosphere rose by about 25%. Scary stuff, right? But it was only at about 400ppm in 2010 (beginning in 1960 it rose less than 2ppm per year for the next 50 years). Theoretically, if we keep adding another 2ppm per year, we could get to that 5,000ppm safety concern in 2,300 years. Except we don't have 2,000 years of fossil fuel left. And a century ago the limit was 10,000ppm. So the concern is completely misplaced.
• Anyone who took biology 101 knows plants need CO₂ to survive, and we need plants to survive (for multiple reasons). Plants and animals trade oxygen and carbon dioxide back and forth forever through breathing and photosynthesis. People don't "make" CO₂ and plants don't "make" O₂, we're exchanging it.
  • In hospitals we create oxygen-rich environments to help people recover/​heal/​grow. The same works for plants: when we immerse them in extra CO₂, they do better. Having more CO₂ in the atmosphere will help farmers and tree huggers.
  • Burning fossil fuels is just burning old plant matter, returning the CO₂ that was locked up in the matter that couldn't escape because of its burial conditions.
  • God made the atmosphere on or before day 3, which was when He made the plants (Genesis 1:6-11). When plants and animals were created they could live, so God made the atmosphere have the right amount of CO₂ and O₂ from the very beginning.
• The atmosphere is almost 80% nitrogen, over 20% oxygen, and less than half of one percent carbon dioxide.
• If anything is harmful to our air, it's smoke and other chemicals (such as those released by burning man-made materials), but not CO₂. Regulating man-made chemicals thrown into the air is being a good steward of the Earth. Regulating CO₂ is both a distraction and a waste of time.
• Atheists have a concern for CO₂ fueled by their evolutionary worldview. Christians have an appreciation for CO₂ inspired by our Biblical worldview.
• Isaiah 24:5 reminds us that the pollution of the earth by immoral (sinful) human behavior is infinitely worse than pollution by amoral garbage.

» AiG: A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming

Proteins are long strings of amino acids and are the building blocks of cells, which are the building blocks of life. The adult human body is estimated to be about 60% water, it's also about 16% fat, 16% proteins, and 6% minerals. The various proteins in our bodies are made of about 20 amino acids. We could compare these 20 amino acids to the letters in an alphabet, and stringing them together in specific sequences produces proteins. This is much like the letters in a sentence, in both cases we're making patterns that make sense and have purpose. Gibberish sentences and proteins are worthless and discarded. Since math is the language of science, let's run the numbers for self-organizing proteins.

What are the odds of putting together an average sized biological protein made of 400 amino acids? For comparison, what are the odds of rolling 1, 2, and 3, in order, using a standard 6 sided die? (A "die" is a single "dice", and this answer involves a lot of math. If math isn't your strong subject, don't get scared, just ignore the numbers and pay attention to the logic.) The odds of getting each number is 1 in 6 (or 1/6th). To calculate the probability we get any specific sequence in order is 1/6 multiplied by 1/6 for as many specific results as we want. So for a sequence of 3, we raise the fraction to the 3rd power, and the formula is (1/6)³, which is 1/216 (or 0.0046). So we should expect we may have to roll the die up to 216 times to get this sequence intentionally right. If it takes 5 seconds on average to roll the die each time, we would have to budget 1,080 seconds, or 18 minutes, to perform the experiment.

Now what if we have a 20 sided die, and want to get a specific sequence of 400 numbers in a row? Then we'd have a formula of (1/20)⁴⁰⁰. If we put this equation into Excel, the number is so small it returns an error. So we have to do this math by hand, and it'll be easier to do with powers of ten. We'll start by converting the fraction: 1/20 = 10^-1 ÷ 2

Then we need to raise that to the 400th power. The formula looks like:

(1/20)⁴⁰⁰   =   (10^-1 ÷ 2)⁴⁰⁰   =   10^-400 ÷ 2⁴⁰⁰   =   10^-400 × 0.5⁴⁰⁰   =   10^-520

So we'd have to budget running the experiment 10⁵²⁰ times to get the specific result we're looking for. Ok, let's switch back from the dice analogy to proteins. With a die, we can estimate how long each experiment will take because we can recreate this experiment at will. But we've never seen how fast evolution supposedly works, other than we've been told it's a very slow process. So let's again use math to calculate how long we have to budget for the amino acids (the molecules) in a protein to self organize. In other words, let's see how long it might take to evolve just one protein by random chance.

There are an estimated 10⁸¹ atoms in the known universe. When we have four hundred 20-sided dice, that's 8,000 numbers. In scientific notation that's 10^3.90309, and to make the math simpler let's round to 10⁴. If there are 10⁸¹ atoms in the universe, and we use 10⁴ atoms per experiment (exp.), then that means we could conduct:

10⁸¹ atoms ÷ 10⁴ atoms per exp. = 10⁷⁷ concurrent exp.

Knowing how many experiments we need to run and how many we can run at the same time, we can calculate the total time needed to run all the experiments:

10⁵²⁰ exp. ÷ 10⁷⁷ exp. at a time = 10⁴⁴³ units of time

But what is the unit? The shortest time recognized in physics is named Planck time, which is 10^-44 seconds. It's not actually measurable, but is derived from physical constants. Let's pretend each experiment takes 1 Planck time. This is completely unwarranted, but helps the math be simpler and works in favor of the evolutionist. There are about 10 million (or 10⁷) seconds per year.

10⁷ seconds per year ÷ 10^-44 seconds per exp. = 10⁵¹ exp. per year

To make a single protein, assuming each experiment took no more than 1 Planck and there are zero interruptions in the experimentation process:

10⁴⁴³ units of time for all exp. ÷ 10⁵¹ exp. per year = 10³⁹³ years

If you thought 10 (or even 13) billion years old was a long time, you're going to love 10³⁹³. The closest we can get to relating to this is there are 10¹⁴ (a hundred trillion) atoms in a single typical human cell, and there are 10⁸¹ atoms in the entire universe. For all practical purposes, 10³⁹³ years are infinitely longer than 10¹⁰. And that's just how long we have to budget to make a protein with 400 amino acids, some are much bigger. But one protein by itself isn't enough for life, so we have to do the whole experiment multiple times to achieve even the very first lifeform. A conservative estimate says there are 100,000 distinct proteins in a human, and remember we used all atoms in the universe so you can't make more than one protein at a time with this formula. And this still couldn't explain where life came from, it could only explain where the building blocks for life came from. But where life came from at this point is moot because the math has made the evolutionary argument impotent anyway.

What insight does this strategically, statistically, and empirically reveal? Consider the facts. Evolution was postulated long before Darwin, but he catapulted it into popularity and the accepted realm of science. Darwin died in 1882. He took his voyage on the Beagle from 1831-1836, and published his infamous book On the Origin of Species in 1859. The first cell was discovered in 1665 but cellular theory took until 1839. DNA wasn't discovered until a decade after Darwin published his book, then knowing what it was had to wait at least 84 more years (1953) when x-ray technology was brought to bear. Darwin and his contemporaries had no idea how complex biology was when they made up evolution. For the last century, science has been objectively exposing their wishful thinking more and more clearly, even if millions of people still prefer his anecdote over the truth of God's word. But truth has consequences.

Remember, they think the universe is 13 billion (10¹⁰), the Earth is 4.5 billion, and the earliest multicellular organisms are supposedly 1 billion years old. That means the first proteins only had a maximum of 3.5 billion (10^9.55) years to evolve. But remember proteins aren't enough, we also need entire cells, and every one of those cells need to specialize and both have and turn into complex systems, including DNA, sensory organs, nervous systems, sexuality, etc. And if we thought a 400 sequence protein was big, DNA has more than a billion base pairs, and nothing we theoretically evolved in any of the above experiments count for anything towards building DNA. If you thought 10³⁹³ was big...

If evolution is made up garbage, then what else is there? If the Bible is right about everything it describes in the natural world, then what about the supernatural? Give it (God) a chance (John 3:12). (For a longer version of this topic, check my spin off article: Dice, Probability, Proteins, Infinity, & Eternity, here.

» Science and Faith: Kingdoms in Conflict?
» How big is the "average" protein?
» How many atoms are there in the universe?
» How many atoms are there in the Earth?
» Earth's Interior & Plate Tectonics (for percent of the surface)
» How many proteins in the human proteome?
» Wikipedia: Planck time
» Wikipedia: Charles Darwin
» Covalent radius, Wikipedia
» What is the Surface Area of the Earth?
» How Old Is Earth?
» Wikipedia: Evolutionary history of life

All energy is expressed as either a particle or a wave. (Sound and water exemplify wave energy, electricity and radiation exemplifying particles.) However there is one exception, light has been demonstrated to behave like both at the same time. I am unaware of this being a specific proof for either side of the argument but it sure is weird. You would not be surprised by something like this in a universe created by an infinitely creative God, but it does not make sense if the universe formed on its own.

» Wikipedia: Wave-particle duality
» Wikipedia: Complementarity (physics)
» The world’s first image of light as both a particle and a wave

Carbon is element number 6 on the Periodic Table. It's been observed that the Earth's crust is only somewhere between 0.032% and 0.18% Carbon. It's either not in the top ten, or number 10, depending on which resource you use. Here's one:

1. Oxygen 46.6%
2. Silicon 28.0%
3. Aluminum 8.1%
4. Iron 5.0%
5. Calcium 3.6%
6. Sodium 2.8%
7. Potassium 2.6%
8. Magnesium 2.1%
9. Titanium 0.6%
10. Hydrogen 0.2%

Contrast this to the atomic makeup of the human body:

1. Oxygen 65.0%
2. Carbon 18.5%
3. Hydrogen 9.5%
4. Nitrogen 3.2%
5. Calcium 1.5%
6. Phosphorus 1.0%
7. Potassium 0.4%
8. Sulfur 0.3%
9. Sodium 0.2%
10. Chlorine 0.2%

Of the top 10, only 2 are close (Oxygen and Calcium) and the rest are pretty far off. This may be little more than interesting trivia. But if we evolved by accident, wouldn't we expect to have evolved using a more abundant element? If we were supernaturally created by an intelligent designer, He would be at liberty to use whatever elements would work best to make us, regardless of how common He decided to make those elements in the rest of the world.

Additionally, God decided what the characteristics of each element would be. He didn't pick them up and just figure out how He could use them. He decided each one's boiling and melting points, their crystal structure, how many electrons, whether they'd be stable, etc. (Hebrews 3:4) So why are we made out of Carbon? I'm not aware of an interesting answer, yet, but I'm sure there is one...

» Facts About Carbon
» The Most Abundant Elements In The Earth's Crust
» The Eight Most Abundant Elements in the Earth's Crust
» Wikipedia: Composition of the human body

As crazy as it is (to a creationist) to believe that an ape could turn into a man, that's nothing compared to how ridiculous a proposition it is that inanimate matter could have somehow randomly resulted in DNA. Even just the physical, raw chemical aspect of it, let alone the meaning-containing encoded informational aspect of it. It's easy (however wrong) as rational creatures made in the image of God, to use our multi-trillion-cell mind and bodies and look at cells that have complex DNA and make a circular argument that constructive mutations happen, and therefore that's evolution. Mathematically/​logically (if not biologically), going from 3 billion base pairs to 3 billion and 1 is not that much of a stretch, and evolutions tend to lament on this. But that's not the point. The real question is how did we get from zero to one, and from one to two? What caused DNA to be "invented" in the first place, if it wasn't God? And not only that, how was it smart enough in the beginning to be capable of self-expanding (and self-replicating)? There's never been anything close to this observed in nature. And there never will. If anyone claims it, they're lying to protect their worldview.

Speaking of math, the probability of randomly rolling a 4 sided die 3 billion times and getting a predetermined sequence (which is mathematically the same scenario that happened for human DNA) is 1 in 4 to the 3 billionth power. If each roll of the die took only 1 second, that would mean we'd need to budget 10^{1,800,000,000} years. Not 1.8 billion years, but rather the number 10 followed by 1.8 billion zeros years. Writing this number down with 3 zeros per inch would be over 9,000 miles (over 15,000 kilometers) long. That's the distance it'd be if you drove from Portugal to Singapore. Remember that number "googol" was invented to represent a number that was for all practical purposes infinity but mathematically distinguishable. That number is a 10 followed by 100 zeros. For a frame of reference, there are estimated to be 10⁸¹ atoms in our entire universe. The mathematical chances of human DNA self-evolving are zero. But remember, not all living things share the same DNA. Onions have 12 times more information than humans do. Whether we prove DNA came from God or not, we can easily prove it did not evolve by time and chance.

» Human Genome Project FAQ
» My own dice & probabilities article
» Why Onions Have More DNA Than You Do

"Matter and energy are basic prerequisites for life, but they cannot be used to distinguish between living and inanimate systems. The central characteristic of all living beings is the 'information' they contain, and this information regulates all life processes and procreative functions. Transfer of information plays a fundamental role in all living organisms." This was pointed out by Werner Gitt in his book, In the Beginning was Information. He laid out numerous laws of nature and dives deep into the nature of information itself. He poses many theorems about information, and his 28th points out:

"There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events
which can cause information to originate by itself in matter."

Until this is disproven, it is irrational to believe that the DNA in every cell of every living thing on Earth came from anywhere but the mind of God.

» In the Beginning was Information, read free on Answers in Genesis or Google, or buy from Amazon

Humans and monkeys share many common characteristics, and that can just as easily mean they have a common creator rather than a common ancestor. Consider the platypus, which has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, soft velvety fur, milk glands, a large brain, a complete diaphragm, their blood temperature is influenced to some extent by their surroundings, and it is one of only two mammals in the world that lay eggs. Evolutionists do not even have a clue what this evolved from but this is not surprising if it is another product of an infinitely creative God who told us both man (Genesis 2:7) and animals (Genesis 2:19) were made by the same process, though man had the added bonus of being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Woman was different but she came from man (Genesis 2:21-22) so that still counts. If you don't like the idea of us coming from "dust" then consider replacing that word with a technical term "atoms" which weren't officially discovered for a few thousand years after this was written. (Notice that dust was possibly the smallest thing known to man at the time. He didn't say sand, or dirt, which would have been different.)

The genetic similarity between all living things is a great example of faith-based bias. Consider that biologists (atheist and theist alike) have found 60% of our DNA is shared with bananas. When you prefer to believe there is no God, you can tell yourself you see the results of millions of generations of evolved life. When you acknowledge God, you see His fingerprints.

» AIG: The echidna enigma and the platypus puzzle
» AIG: Still more questions than answers for evolutionists
» Our DNA is 99.9% the same as the person next to us... (Business Insider)

Actually there is no proof at all. There is nothing even close. Business evolves, technology evolves, and processes evolve because intelligent people motivate them to. Biological evolution dictates that in general, more complex life forms come from simpler life forms. Specifically this means that the DNA of living things must gain information over time. The second law of thermodynamics and 28th theorem of information defy this. Numerous phenomena have been observed where living organisms have changed over time, but none of them involve an increase in genetic information. Biological evolution (as atheists need to define it) has never been observed. Creation was observed. See Job 38:1-38 and Deuteronomy 4:32. Here's a list of those observed phenomena (if they don't explain a perpetual increase in genetic information, or how we went from nothing to the first valid DNA, then they are non-helpful to evolutionary theory):

• Mutation is random destabilization of DNA often caused by external factors (such as radiation.) Destabilization by definition is destructive, not constructive. Even if a mutation ends up being beneficial it is still caused by a loss of genetic information, so this is the opposite of evolution. (Note no one has ever observed mutation to be what evolutionists wish it to be. It's never been empirically observed in a scientifically valid study to be the result of a gain, or invention of new genetic information, which makes it a textbook example of wishful thinking for evolutionists.)
• Natural selection involves certain characteristics of a particular species breeding more than others which results in a formerly rare characteristic becoming common. However in this situation, no new information has developed, only rare info became common.
• Genetics is a complex field and sexual reproduction involves each parent only providing half the genes for the new baby, resulting in a new combination. (There are a few related named processes, including genetic variation, genetic recombination, and genetic drift, each with their own subtle differences that are out of scope for this FAQ.) This is not the same thing as mutation because information stored in our DNA isn't randomly being lost, we simply only get to pass on half our genes when we reproduce. (Of course mutation could also occur at this same time and would be more damaging to a life form with one or just a few cells than would be to an organism with trillions of them.) And it's not evolution because no new information is being created. The information is just being passed on and two [hopefully] diverse living organisms merging into one new one (Genesis 2:24).
• Gene regulation is a process where a cell can "choose" to use (turn on or off) certain genes it already contains. For one example, some fish have been observed to form eyes (and throw them away) in a single generation. (Mom had eyes, baby doesn't, and vice versa.) That doesn't mean the genetic information came out of nowhere (evolved), it means God gave the fish the genetic programming to function with and without eyes, and the ability to adapt as needed. There is a related term phenotypic plasticity, which involves phenotypes and genes. A phenotype describes the observable physical characteristics of an organism. It is determined by the genes but we're learning more about how it adapts to environmental influences. For another example, lizards in the Mojave Desert (between Los Angeles and Las Vegas) change color (darkness) in weeks, and pass that coloration to their offspring (referred to as the Baldwin Effect). Here again, all the genetic information was already present and was just waiting for the right circumstances to be activated (regulated). Evolutionists had hoped these were examples of natural xenogenesis, but they weren't.

In 2016 I had a man, who happened to be a college professor, argue with me that cancer is another category, and was the category that proved biological evolution as truth. We ran out of time to really discuss each other's point of view, but would you really want your closest proof for your worldview to be cancer? And if that were the case, then don't we have the completely wrong attitude toward it? If evolution is exemplified in cancer, and evolution is what made us who we are, and is the key to our future, then shouldn't the healthcare industry be promoting cancer rather than trying to eradicate it? (Matthew 12:25-26) Fortunately this is a moot point, because cancer doesn't change the fact that evolution is fiction.

In 2012 I made a creation-themed mantra: "Encoded usable information never increases without the aid of intelligence (think DNA.)"

» PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics?
» In the Beginning was Information: Information in Living Organisms (includes 28th theorem of information)
» Blind fish learn to see
» New eyes for blind cave fish?

All the complexities of a biological system must exist together because the components are useless separate and must all be functional at once for the system to work at all. Easy examples of this include: flight, sexuality, and all 5 senses. DNA is another, because you need the encoded information, a system to decode (read) the information, a system to write the information (reproduce it), and a system to utilize it, all appearing at the exact same time, because each of these systems alone or even all but one of them is utterly a waste (Psalm 94:9, Psalm 139:14, Proverbs 20:12).

Evolutionists think irreducible complexity is stupid and debunked. Of course they do, they are obligated to, because if it wasn't then it would kill their worldview. Let's look at sight:

• Some animals have photoreceptors that simply detect light (yes/no detectors).
• Others have slightly more advanced yet still simple directional sensors (light exists left or right, or directly in front).
• Still others have pathetic eyeballs that function really poorly, and
• us elites have "fully" formed eyes with a retina and a lense, etc.

Evolutionists would say these examples are evolutionary points in time, that each is a building block to the next, proving that sight could evolve on its own. But they're leaving out an important detail. An eye is undeniably useless on its own. At the same time as you have an eye (or proto-eye), you need an optic nerve and you need a brain (or something) that knows how to interpret the bio-electrical signal. The optic nerve would be useless without the eye, and the eye is useless without the optic nerve. And how would an eye (or a photoreceptor) invent a method to encode the detection of light as information for the rest of the organism, transmit it through the optic nerve (or whatever), and then the brain (or any part of even a single-celled organism) would figure out how to decode that information, all fast enough (in generational terms) to catch on. This overtaxes reality and is nothing more than fantasy/​fiction/​wishful thinking. This, combined with the fact that no one has ever observed any of the various eye-like structures turn into each other (evolution has never been observed), means an evolutionist is simply making it all up to defend their preferred worldview (Psalm 53:1-2).

Far from being debunked, in 2020, atheist scientists conceded the point in the journal NewScientist. The article starts out describing conventional evolutionary thought as fact, though they admit it has proven impossible to prove, "the alternative – that life emerged fully formed – seems even more unlikely. Yet perhaps astoundingly, two lines of evidence are converging to suggest that this is exactly what happened." Later, they elaborate that "it has long been thought that the ingredients for life came together slowly, bit by bit. Now there is evidence it all happened at once in a chemical big bang" (source, quoted). How satisfying for Christians whenever others barrow from their worldview. It would be honoring if the purpose wasn't to discredit and dethrone God.

» Evolution of the eye (wikipedia)
» Why Sex is the Best Argument For Creation (and Against Evolution)

Up until the mid 1600's people thought that life could form spontaneously. One supposed "proof" for this was the situation where maggots would form on dead animals. Mold was probably another. In the mid 1800's Louis Pasteur made the final proving experiment that killed this philosophy. I do not know that evolutionists had too many hopes in this philosophy, but either way now all their eggs are in one basket. They have to believe that the first cells came from sludge and the next ones evolved from simple to complex. But just because they are single, even single-celled organisms are not simple. To get by this, evolutionists place a distinction between "protocells" and the first cells. Protocells being truly simple and full cells being comparable to teeny cities or factories, with all their specialized functions of energy production, waste disposal, repair, reproduction, etc. Except the development of protocells into full cells is no easier to believe (or prove) than the development of single-celled organisms into multicell organisms.

Not only do observable living things only come from other living things, as proven by Mr Pasteur, but God (who is alive) gave the first creatures their life about 6,000 years ago and specifically declared that all creatures would reproduce more of the same kind. On day 5 He created sea dwellers and the birds (Genesis 1:20-28) and on day 6 He created land dwellers (Genesis 1:24-27), most notably including man (Genesis 2:7) and woman (Genesis 2:21-22). Further, this was not an isolated incident but God continues to be the source, sustainer and enabler of all life (Deuteronomy 30:20, Numbers 16:22, Nehemiah 9:6, Isaiah 42:5, Ezekiel 37:4-10, and Acts 17:25).

» AIG: Life from life... or not?
» AIG: God & Natural Law
» Catholic Encyclopedia: Biogenesis and Abiogenesis
» Wikipedia: Biogenesis

» The Molecular Impasse of Evolution
» How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve into Multicellular Ones
» Bacteria and single celled organisms (forum)
» Wikipedia: Microorganism

The human intuition wrongly assumes that life in the womb is directly comparable to life outside the womb. Since we observe babies to have all the biological components of adults, and we observe them grow bigger with only subtle changes until they reach full maturity, that leads us to assume life in the womb is the same. But it's not. A God-fearing worldview leads us to say things like Psalm 139:13. But just because observational science has given us the tools to watch a human develop inside the womb doesn't make it any less mysterious. As in astronomy, there's a difference between being able to observe something and being able to explain why it is.

The heart is a fascinating example of the numerous counterintuitive, non-obvious processes that happen in the womb, which have no corollary to processes that happen after [normal] birth. (The term "counterintuitive" is not a critique, and the term "numerous" is not meant to be exaggerated.) For example, the heart does not start out as a single heart cell and then divide until enough cells are available to specialize and comprise a whole heart, which then starts beating. Nor does it start beating early (before it's capable of truly performing its eventual duty). It starts out as two completely separate chambers that aren't even touching. The dual, simpler pumping organs perform a specific task of circulating blood in the temporary conditions of the embryo (characterized by weeks 2-8). Then these two organs come together, forming a single, two chamber organ. Then two more chambers form, making four total. Ms. Dent concludes:

"The examples from [the formation of the heart] show that development is a sequentially dependent process. Each step of development is dependent upon the previous step. Disrupting any step in the process destroys the whole process so that the embryo will not reach reproductive adulthood... This sequential dependence of development shows that evolution fails as an explanatory mechanism for the origins of the vertebrate circulatory system since natural selection acting on random mutations over long periods of time would not sustain the embryo at each sequential step in the developmental process."

The only logical response to this for an evolutionist is to counter that some other (simpler) process must have been at work previously, and we got lucky and invented this more complex process as "extra credit." Only that explanation isn't science, it's wishful thinking. Even if they ever find other organisms whose heart does form that way, they will never have any evidence humans' used to, too. Now who's the scientist?

» AIG: Life's Hidden Marvel, by Laurieanne Dent

Yes. Just because crystals form complex, mathematically explained patterns naturally does not mean natural life-useable information for functionality ever increases on its own. Just because the cloud immediately after a nuclear explosion looks like a mushroom does not mean anything resulting from the explosion is more useful than what was there previously. There is a difference between beauty and information inventing itself. The proliferation of beauty, of symmetry, of harmony, all around us is actually perfectly good evidence of a divine Creator who wanted His creation to make sense and wanted it to be enjoyed (Jeremiah 29:11). Have you ever witnessed productivity improve in nature? I don't mean reproduction, I mean efficiency, capacity, capabilities, etc. Nothing except that which is motivated by intelligence ever becomes more productive. You might witness a random event where something good happened by accident, but productivity never increases on its own. The second law of thermodynamics demands that any closed system deteriorate over time and therefore become less productive/​effective/​efficient. Any true productivity increase requires intelligence. Astronomical and biological evolution would be examples of countless productivity increases so can't be a real phenomenon. (By the way, the eventual destruction of the earth, like aluded to by the second law of thermodynamics, was prophesied in 1 John 2:17.)

» PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics?
» Amazon: Werner Gitt: In the Beginning was Information
» Why are butterflies colored? (Interference)

Making the Ark didn't take more skill than making a normal sized boat, it took more labor. Modern ships need to balance many constraints, like being light so they can be fast to maximize fuel efficiency and cross the Atlantic faster, or have a chance of outmaneuvering attackers. They also have to be affordable and constructed in a reasonable amount of time. The Ark could ignore all these concerns. It didn't even need a rudder, it just had to float, be stable, and meet God's specifications (Genesis 6:14-16). As an example, mortise and tenon planking is way too labor intensive for us in the 20th and 21st centuries, but wouldn't have been back then. While the Wyoming (a 450 foot wooden boat) sank in 1924 due to hull stress, it's worth noting that demise happened after over a dozen years of successfully hauling tens of thousands of tons of cargo. Noah's boat only had to last one year.

» Wikipedia: Wyoming (schooner)
» AiG: Thinking Outside the Box
» Mortise & tenon planking (Google Images)

This is nothing new, it's just not discussed in most schools (public nor private). Science is the study of knowledge (or truth) and is a subset of philosophy (which is the study of being). In the name of science, we can observe how things are (observational science) or where they came from (origins science). Observational science has changed our lives dramatically in the last couple of centuries, bringing steam engines, space travel, the Internet, cell phones, etc. Origins, or historical science, is forensics. Criminal forensics, for example, is the use of the scientific method to determine how a crime was committed when either no one (but the perpetrators) observed it, all the eyewitnesses have since died, or there is inadequate obvious evidence & testimony to implicate anyone. But the same techniques can be used to try to answer any questions about the past. The credibility of the former (observational science) should not be shared with the later (origins science). For example, knowing how an airplane works does not help you understand in any way how the first one was invented (created).

» Inventing a Flying Machine

No, but math does have a lot to say. Like information itself (mentioned in the Biology section above) math and beauty cannot be explained by purely physical or electrical means. Therefore it cannot be explained by evolution. Mathematical concepts exist independent of the physical medium used to express them, and they don't require energy. But key is there is no process nor mechanism by which matter or energy produce new mathematical equations, especially not any which the universe adopts and obeys as it goes along. Saying the laws of nature formed billions of years ago by a non-repeatable process isn't science, at best it's conjecture and at worst it's religion, because that explanation requires faith.

Related, beauty is not a function of evolution. Survival of the fittest (fit means most able to adapt to their environment and survive to reproductive maturity) is a result of evolutionary philosophy. The concept of beauty and aesthetics is not. Information, math, and beauty, are just a result of the mind of God imprinting Himself on the universe He created.

Since the probability of all components of irreducibly complex systems evolving or otherwise developing independently at the same time are so remote, the second law of thermodynamics flat out contradicts evolution, evolution has never been observed, and there is no evidence at all of one kind of animal turning into another (a fish turning into a horse), it takes at least as much "faith" in evolution as a religious person has in God to believe evolution has ever happened. So it is not a matter of leaving faith out, but instead a matter of choosing what to have faith in (1 Kings 18:21). God did not try to trick us when he created the world, it is our own expectations, presuppositions, and prideful desire to disprove God that get in the way of seeing the truth. By the way, completely blind faith in God is not faith at all, but ignorance. The God of the Bible wants us to be educated (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) about things He has & continues to demonstrate to us and then to trust Him (have faith) on things that we are not able to see or understand (Hebrews 11:1,3). Observable scientific "evidence" alone is not good enough because with enough research we will see that the same evidence is consistently and seemingly convincingly used to prove the points people make from both sides of the argument! This reinforces the point that the real question at hand is not "where did we come from" but instead "can we take God at his word, period?" (Isaiah 2:22, Isaiah 66:2, John 3:32-33 MSG)

» AIG: A look at some myths about scientists
» TalkOrigins, an anti-creationist index to creationist claims
» Quotes about God to consider if you think science leads to atheism

While it would be irrational for me to say that nothing good has come from a belief in evolution, it would be just as irrational for me to say that nothing good has come from a belief in creation. My wife saw someone wearing a tee-shirt claiming to list some scientific inventions made by evolutionists and by creationists, and of course the evolutionist list was long and the creationist list was completely empty. Being ignorant is dumb but lying is evil. Let us be clear on some basic facts.

• 900 years ago science was simply "knowledge gained by study" but only in the last hundred years has the dictionary qualified this to "the physical world", in part to differentiate it from philosophy. Philosophy comes from Greek words meaning "the love of wisdom" and has a broader scope including knowledge (epistemology), reasoning (logic), being in general (metaphysics), beauty (aesthetics), and human conduct (ethics).
• A scientist is simply someone who uses the scientific method to study something, presumably one of the mainstream sciences. (But remember 'mainstream' is defined by culture and isn't absolute.)
• The scientific method is a method of research in which a problem is identified, data are gathered, a hypothesis is formed from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested. (Note observability and repeatability are critical, and when we can't observe or can't repeat, then the scientific method cannot be used, and forensic-style research must be employed instead.)
• Here are a few scientists who might be read about in secular history books (minus their religious convictions) who believed in special creation by the God of the Bible.

Scientist Lived Remembered For Francis Bacon 1561-1626 Father of the scientific method (sirbacon.org, wikipedia) Johannes Kepler 1571-1630 Formulated the three laws of planetary motion (wikipedia) Isaac Newton 1643-1727 Formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope, co-discovered calculus, etc. (wikipedia) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 1646-1716 Co-discovered calculus (wikipedia) John Dalton 1766-1844 Father of modern atomic theory, cataloged first periodic chart of the elements (wikipedia) Michael Faraday 1791-1867 Co-discovered electromagnetic fields, invented the electric motor (creation safaris, wikipedia) Charles Babbage 1792-1871 The first speedometer and first true automatic computer (creation safaris, wikipedia) Joseph Henry 1797-1878 Co-discovered electromagnetic fields, one of the original pillars of the Smithsonian Institution & National Academy of Sciences, insights into electromagnetic relay lead to the electrical telegraph (creation safaris, wikipedia) James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 Developed what became first law of thermodynamics, got a unit of energy named after him (creation safaris, wikipedia) Louis Pasteur 1822-1895 Proved biogenesis, formulator of the germ theory of disease (wikipedia) William Thomson 1824-1907 First to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics (disbelieved in evolution but not exactly a creationist, creation safaris, wikipedia) James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 Formulated the unified equations of electromagnetic fields (light, magnetism & electricity), made first color photograph (wikipedia, ASA3) Max Planck 1858-1947 Founder of quantum physics (wikipedia) Raymond Vahan Damadian 1936-? Invented the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner (wikipedia)

These people were not religious zealots, they were rational people who used the scientific method to learn about the universe and then asked themselves what they could do with that knowledge. A person's presuppositions about creation are not a qualifier nor disqualifier for whether or not a person can be considered a true scientist. Note the reason I haven't listed many recent (currently living) creationists is there are too many, and modern scientists are obscure. These listed above are world famous. For modern creationists, check how many authors there are on this sampling of famous creation apologetic (defending) ministries:

• AnswersInGenesis.com
• Creation.com
• CreationToday.com
• ICR.org

Further, a lady in India in 2003 published a book on statistical analysis of Nobel Prize Laureates (winners) from 1901-2000. She determined that almost two-thirds of the winners were identifiable as Christian, and more than one fifth were Jewish. In the field of chemistry, specifically, Christians were awarded over 70% of the time, and over 60% in both physics and medicine (biology). Her book was titled 100 Years of Nobel Prizes, available on Google Books, here, or Amazon, here, and there was a corollary blog on GodEvidence.com, here.

» Quotes about God to consider... if you think science leads to atheism.
» AIG: Can Creationists Be Scientists
» Amazon: Fred Heeren's Show Me God (see especially bonus section 1: fifty believers who lead the way in science)
» Wikipedia: Thomas Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Anyone who doesn't believe in Genesis 1 (hopefully most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe it) will probably answer (if they've put any thought into it) the 7 day week comes from the moon. The lunar cycle is about 28 days, with each quarter cycle being about 7 days. But it's not 7, it's almost 7.5. That means the full moon isn't on the same day of the week for 7-9 months. If this were really the cultural backstory for the week, wouldn't many (at least some) cultures have invoked a leap day?

As comparison, the yearly calendar used in Christendom (and to some extent the whole world, due to computers and business globalization) isn't based on Genesis 1, it was invented by the Romans. They were smart enough to know if they fixed the year to either 365 or 366 days, then it wouldn't be long before it was snowing in August but not January, and then back again. So they included one extra day every 4 years to keep the seasons consistent year after year, century after century. No one bothered to do this for the week. You know why? Because the moon wasn't the basis for the week, Creation was. And everyone who walked away from Babel in Genesis 11, regardless of the language they spoke, knew it. The fact that the moon rotates around the earth about once a month is just a coincidence, or even better, a test (Deuteronomy 4:19, 13:1-3, Zechariah 13:9).

» Wiki: Lunar phase
» Wiki: Gregorian calendar

In general this asserts that all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. It also includes minimizing assumptions. None of us are informed enough to know that evolution nor creation are truly "simpler". However, that being said, there is nothing that even comes close to explaining why the universe is orderly if the Big Bang was real. There is no reason the laws of physics should exist, there is no reason the universe should be consistent. Yet they do and it is. There was nothing to cause the laws of physics to form, and even if there was (which there was not) then how did they form with such simple equations? (Is the universe "simple-minded"? If so then why has it obviously matured but not obviously gotten smarter?) Creation is not a concept by itself, it is a package deal with the Bible (or the Jewish Torah) which is why it is so hard for some to stomach. Let us consider a summary of what evolutionists think is too "complicated" to be possible.

1. God made the entire universe and everything in it. (Genesis 1:1) If you want to play the causality game and now ask "who or what caused God" then see one of the links at the bottom of this answer. More to the point now is that God created the universe. We know because He told us but He did not tell us He had a beginning. (Isaiah 26:4, Jeremiah 10:10, Romans 1:20)
2. God made Satan but then Satan decided he was better than his Creator, deserved to take God's place and attempted a coup. (Isaiah 14:12-15, Revelation 12:7-9)
3. Satan and his followers fail and are put in their place. (Luke 10:18, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6)
4. Satan is furious with God and resolves to do anything he can to attempt to hurt God (Revelation 13:6). Since humanity is God's favorite creation, Satan realizes the best way to try to hurt God is to trick us into turning against God too. God allows Satan to try this (Job 1:6-12, Job 2:1-7) in order to allow us to choose for ourselves between good and evil. (Genesis 2:16-17, Proverbs 1:32-33)
5. Satan appeals to Eve's pride and lust, as well as Adam's pride and complacency, and convinces them to commit the first human sin. (Genesis 3:1-7)
6. All of mankind (which was just two people at the time, but has grown) is cursed by God for our disobedience, and the universe with us. (Genesis 3:8-24, Romans 8:20-22)
7. Satan and his followers exploit their supernatural powers and continue to use our pride, lust and complacency against us in an effort to keep us from the purpose God created us for. (Acts 17:26-27, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, 1 Peter 5:8)
8. We play right into Satan's trap and some of us choose not to believe the truth, condemning ourselves to confusion, doubt, and conflict in life and damnation after that. (Mark 16:16, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 8:31-32)
9. Some of us realize what is going on and notice that what the Bible says seems to fit the facts. Some of these believers go out into various places around the world and encourage strangers to believe in the God of the Bible. Amazing wonders and miracles happen to and around those who believe Jesus. When these miracles occasionally defy the laws of physics they essentially prove that the God in whose name these miracles happen is real. (Acts 12:6-10, Acts 28:1-10, Hebrews 2:4)
10. Jesus came to Earth to prove God loves us in a way we can relate to and that fulfilled the prophecies He gave the prophets hundreds (and thousands) of years prior. And He says He will come again. His first visit was as savior (John 3:16) and His second will be as judge (Matthew 16:27). We only get one chance at life then we continue to live with the consequences of our choices in life for eternity (Hebrews 9:27).

This may be "deep" but it is not more "complicated" than evolution. I would even argue it's simpler.

» Wikipedia: Occam's Razor
» ICR: Everything has a cause
» AIG: If God created the universe, then who created God?
» Jesus Freaks (DC Talk)
» End of the Spear

Because we must realize there is literally a spiritual war going on (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) and this would send a mixed message to the world. Any attempt at this is missing the point. The strongest proponents of molecules to man evolution don't want to believe in God. They love it when creationists use their terminology because then they can truthfully read your quotes word for word, out of context, to people who are undecided and easily convince them of the lie. Can you imagine moving to Israel and setting up a new humanitarian aid group, honestly hoping to help Jews and others alike, but naming it a concentration camp and having a corporate identity (symbol) of the swastika rather than the red cross? That would be ridiculous, you would never redefine those things for the Jews because it would dishonor the people who suffered from the ideas that symbol represented. The idea of redefining evolution would not only fail for similar reasons, but it would also simply be legalistic and have no impact on truly reaching people with the Truth of God. This would be just a needless compromise with evolutionists. Because they know that good people tire and all people rebel, and eventually our efforts to redefine the word will grow weak and we will be in such a habit of using their terminology that we will adopt their theology, too. The only thing (as far as evolution goes) for a believer in Jesus Christ (or even a Jew) to do is to lovingly, educatedly, encourage people that the Bible is the word of God and that it should be taken as serious Truth. If you do not take my word for it then read what God says in the Old Testament in Exodus 23:13,33, Deuteronomy 7:25 and Deuteronomy 12:4,29-32, or in the new with Colossians 2:8 and 2 Timothy 2:23-26.

By the way, in some circles "natural selection" is also referred to as "microevolution." This is not a good idea for Christians for similar reasons as just stated.

This was a compromise invented by men who wanted to make both sides of the evolutionary debate happy but ended up making neither side happy. (This is more generically referred to outside the Catholic Church as "theistic evolution" or "progressive creation".) This recently invented concept is comparable to patronizing Jesus as simply a "good man" but not divine. But good men do not claim to be God unless they really are, otherwise they are liars and hence not good. So there is no middle ground on whether Jesus was God or an idiot, nor is there middle ground on this issue. Mitigated evolution was invented to make the Bible "fit" our modern society's evolution-based paradigm of the world and is not based on scripture. Jesus warns us of taking seemingly neutral, or appeasing, attitudes towards lies and falsehood (Revelation 3:15-16).

By the way, there were numerous compromise positions invented in the last couple centuries to force God's account of our origin to align with man's ideas. Here is a decent but partial list:

• Mitigated Evolution / Theistic Evolution / Progressive Creation (molecules to man evolution following a Big Bang happened just as atheist scientists claim but God was in control of it all)
• Day-Age Theory (each day in Genesis 1 is not 24 hours but instead an unlimited/​undefined length of time spanning millions of years or more)
• Gap Theory (a gap of unlimited time is implied between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, potentially lasting billions of years)
• Local or Peacefull Flood (the flood description of Genesis 7:19-24 was errant and the flood was either just in the Mesopotamia area or it was completely tranquil and had no serious effects.)

Jesus was patronized when He walked the earth. One recorded example was John 7:12. God was patronized in the Old Testament when Israel pretended to worship Him but only on their own terms. A small sampling of God's responses were Isaiah 1:11-17, Amos 5:21–24, Malachi 3:8-10, 13-15. And don't forget Proverbs 18:2.

First of all, God said He used supernatural creation and didn't leave ambiguity about long duration processes for us to figure out. He said He created the world in 6 days and by definition any other belief is anti-Biblical. Paul referred to a similar concept in 2 Corinthians 10:5. But why call evolution anti Christian?

Darwinian Evolution is a common term used today to refer to the changing of one kind into another over long ages of time, including the process that would cause a fish to eventually turn into an elephant or an eagle. The term gets it's name from Charles Darwin who published his infamous book, On the Origin of Species in 1859 (and it's sequel, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex in 1871). A great deal of inspiration for that book was attributed to his 6 year voyage on the Beagle (1831-1836) which is when he visited the Galopagos islands and observed those finches. Darwin said in a letter in 1844 "I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brains & that I never acknowledge this sufficiently... for I have always thought that the great merit of the Principles, was that it altered the whole tone of one's mind".

Charles Lyell popularized the concept that "the present is the key to the past" in his 1830 book Principles of Geology. He saw himself as "the spiritual saviour of geology, freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses." He wanted to divorce science from God. How much more anti-Christian can we get? Don't underestimate this concept. It was given the name "uniformitarianism" and is so dangerous it was critically prophesied about (warned of) in the Bible in 2 Peter 3:3-6. The belief in uniformitarianism is understood to be a direct contrast to catastrophism (a belief in the global flood of Genesis 6-8) because the whole purpose of uniformitarianism is to explain geology without any Biblical-scale catastrophes.

In the 21st century, one of the most famous evolutionists, Richard Dawkins, has flat out said that evolution is diametrically opposed to the whole of Christian theology. For example, in 2011 he said "I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity." A lesser known atheist, Michael Ruse, said this in 2000: "evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint... the literalists [creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Honest evolutionists recognize their anti-God religion for what it is, and people who try to have it both ways are naive. Although apparently Michael Ruse is embarrassed by Richard Dawkin's logic, so my apologies for quoting them in the same paragraph.

Because of a misplaced desire to compromise with atheist scientists who falsely interpret evidence for evolution in the world (but sound smart while doing it, Isaiah 47:10) many well meaning Christians have damaged the Church and tarnished the [earthly] glory of God with their anti-Biblical explanations of how God could have used atheist ideas to accomplish His will (briefly mentioned in the previous answer). Because countless people have used these false compromise ideas as reasons to decide the history of Genesis is false and therefore the rest of the Bible is false, and these people then deny their need for a savior and the reality of what Jesus did and who He really is, it's not a stretch to call evolutionary philosophy anti-Christian. Still uncomfortable with the classification? Let's ask, how many people have become believers in Christ because of what they "learned" about evolution, and how many have become an apostate because of that same knowledge? The ratio is quite skewed, and none of these philosophies nor the philosophers who advocate for them deserve your loyalty. God does (Joel 2:12).

Evolution believing Christians are in serious danger of hearing from God what the Israelites heard from God's prophet in Ezekiel 36:21-23. Atheist evolutionists are in serious eternal danger (besides the obvious by definition of denying God) if they fit the description of 2 Peter 2:10 (though read all of chapter 2 for full context).

» AiG: Millions of Years: Where Did the Idea Come From?
» Wiki: Charles Darwin
» [Darwin's Letter] To Leonard Horner 29 August 1844
» Wiki: Charles Lyell
» AiG: Atheist Richard Dawkins: “Evangelical Christians Have Really Sort Of Got It Right”
» Wiki: History of Evolutionary Thought
» Michael Ruse, A-Z Quotes

No, the original Hebrew is just like the days of the week. This is again just another compromise. Let's count the reasons.

• Notice that at the end of days 1-6 (chapter 1 verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31) it says "there was evening, and there was morning" (NIV). No other length of time is separated by an "evening" and a "morning". Why would it say this six times in a row if it was not trying to be painfully clear that the days are referring to literal 24 hour days as we know them now?
• If you want to attempt the stance that the people of Moses's day were "simpletons" and could not understand evolutionary timescales, then consider these verses that describe astronomical numbers without cryptically and inconveniently reusing another word (like "day"): Genesis 16:9-10, 22:15-18, 41:47-49, and Jeremiah 33:22. Contrast that to John 4:10-15 where Jesus cryptically reuses the term water.
• If the six days of creation were just philosophical representations of larger time period(s), then why is it never explained later (consider the harmony of the Bible) yet consider how ridiculously strongly God ties the modern seven day week to the literal week of creation in Exodus 31:12-17.
• Four of the authors of scripture took Genesis 2:7 (which says God formed man directly from the dust of the earth) literally: Job 10:9,34:15, Psalms 90:3,103:14,104:29, Ecclesiastes 3:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:47. That's not even including how Moses also quotes Abraham in Genesis 18:27. Zero even hint at any other origin of man, especially not biological evolution of proteins to people.
• If the six days of creation were just made up hypothetical references, then why would God keep referring back to them as literal days and never once clarifying them as nebulous, astronomically long "time periods"?
• If you think the reference to death in Genesis 2:17 is only spiritual then perhaps you didn't notice that thorns (Genesis 3:18) and returning to dust (Genesis 3:19) didn't come until the curse. Either Genesis 2:17 and Romans 5:12 are right or they're not. If there were millions of years of evolution before the "story" of Adam and Eve, then there would be countless examples of suffering and death during the time God said everything was good (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) and before the events of Genesis 3. This would logically require a conclusion that Genesis 1 and 2 contain innumerable falsities. The hope for this logic to be true is strategically why evolutionists have a death grip on their long ages timeline, and why you are being ridiculous if you compromise with them.

As usual the question is really just "can we take God at his word", or to rephrase "can we take God seriously"? Because then there is the opposite problem that in Genesis 5 the Bible does a 180 and describes how six of the nine people in the lineage from Adam to Noah lived over 900 years and the rest lived over 300! Jacob (Israel) told Pharaoh he was "only 130" in Genesis 47:9, saying he had lived a short life compared to his ancestors. Either the record is right or it is not. The Jews are not a people group who accepted such blatant inaccuracy, if that is what it was. At the very least someone in the thousands of years between Moses and the orthodox church would have fudged the numbers to make them more reasonable if anyone did not believe them to be literal and accurate. And let's not confuse the purpose of 2 Peter 3:8 (the "a thousand years is like a day" verse) which is just pointing out God is above time and therefore not in any hurry. It isn't Peter making excuses for inaccuracies in the past but rather both a warning and reassurance about the future. Read the context in 2 Peter 3:7-9.

» AIG: If evolution over millions of years was the way God created, He could easily have said so in simple words.

Atheists think they've got a stumper here. And from an evolutionary perspective, it would be. But from a Biblical worldview, it's real easy. First, light exists independent of it's source, so God could have easily just "created light" without creating the light source, since He is after all omnipotent. But that's the boring answer. As we look through the scriptures, we see that God is light:

• Isaiah 60:19-20  hub
• Ezekiel 10:4  hub
• Ezekiel 43:2  hub
• Habakkuk 3:4  hub
• Matthew 28:3  hub

• Luke 2:9  hub
• 1 John 1:5  hub
• Revelation 18:1  hub
• Revelation 21:23-24  hub

When we consider the practical significance of Isaiah 60:19-20, Ezekiel 43:2, Revelation 18:1 and 21:23-24, and that in the future God will be the source of light, then why would it be difficult to believe that in the past, during the first 72-84 hours of creation, He was the source of light, too? The Bible does not specify what the source was, but it's not a theological problem to come up with numerous ways God could have done it, nor is it practically necessary that the question be answered definitively.

As supporting trivia:

• God is also described as fire in Deuteronomy 4:24, Ezekiel 1:27-28, and Revelation 19:12.
• Angels glow for the same reason Moses did in Exodus 34:29.
• Angels aren't the only ones who glow, even demons and Satan are invited into the presence of God on occasion: Job 1:6, 2:1, and 2 Corinthians 11:14-15
• In addition to verses just mentioned above, angels are described as luminary in Job 38:7, Psalm 104:4, Ezekiel 1:13-14, and Acts 12:7.

» Light Before the Sun

There is an allegation that the first two chapters of the Bible contradict each other in their orders of creation. The straightforward answer is Genesis 1:1-2:4 is an account of the creation of the universe, the Earth and everything on the Earth, which happened in seven days (including a day of rest). Genesis 2:4-25 expounds on what happened on day 6 and more importantly begins the critical account of the origins of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. The key is Genesis 2 is specifically describing the dawn of time from Adam's perspective (even though it is written in the third person) and Genesis 1 was written more broadly.

As usual, this is just another attack on the authority of scripture (Psalm 11:3) for the purpose of removing God's perceived ability to speak into our lives (John 3:12 and 5:46-47) so that we can think we can do whatever we want without accountability (Judges 17:6 and 21:25). For anyone interested in more than a FAQ, I wrote a blog post expanding on this concept, too. Read it here.

» Are there two creation accounts?
» Genesis contradictions?
» Two Contradictory Creation Accounts

You need to understand how naïve it is to blend flat-out contradictory religions (called syncretism). Theologians can't agree on a single definition of religion, so here are a few:

• A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe (dictionary.com)
• A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Merriam-Webster)
• A set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by (Microsoft Encarta)
• A social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. (Wikipedia)
• Human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence (Encyclopedia Britanica)
• The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (Lexico.com / Oxford)

The origin of the universe, the earth, and human life was not observed by any human alive today nor has anything comparable ever been observed, nor can the process be repeated for future observation, so any belief about how it really happened requires faith. People who do not want to believe in (or be accountable to) any God usually find comfort in the concepts of the big bang succeeded by biological evolution. This has become those peoples' religion, an anti-god religion where God is neither necessary nor wanted (Judges 17:6, 21:25). Most people who call themselves Christian believe the Bible when it claims to be the inspired word of God. (It does this explicitly in 2 Timothy 3:16.) But this is not blind faith because we believe that the God of the Bible is a living God (Deuteronomy 5:26, Psalm 84:2, Jeremiah 10:10, Daniel 6:26, Matthew 16:16, Hebrews 10:31, Revelation 7:2) and that He is actively involved in our lives. At some point (especially if you are a follower of Christ) we must stop asking ourselves what God could have done (used millions of years/​evolution) and we must ask what God says He did. Let's take a close look at what God says in Genesis 1:1-2:23.

• God says He made light three days before He made the Sun, moon & stars (GE 1:3). Big bang proponents do not believe in any universal light sources other than from stars.
• God says the Earth was at first all water. Then He added the sky and lastly He formed dry ground (GE 1:6-10). Big bang proponents say the earth formed from stellar dust/​gas, condensed to become all molten rock, and only after it cooled for a long time did water appear.
• God says He made the atmosphere before the land (GE 1:8-9). Evolutionists believe the atmosphere came from volcanic eruptions, which are part of the land.
• God says He made vegetation capable of producing seeds and fruit the day before He made the Sun (GE 1:11-16). Old Earth, or "long ages" proponents say the Sun had to come way before any plants.
• God says He made the Sun 3-4 days after He made the Earth, depending on how you count (GE 1:1, 1:14-19). Any high school student of evolution can tell you the Big Bang model requires the Sun to have formed before or at the same time as the Earth, depending on how you count. There is no way, according to secular science, that planet Earth had taken full geologic shape before the Sun existed.
• God says He created sea dwelling animals and flying animals on the same day (GE 1:20-21). Evolutionists believe life originated in the ocean and took a long time to evolve into birds.
• God says He created land animals the day after He created birds (GE 1:24). Biological evolutionary chronology dictates the opposite: that birds evolved from land animals.
• God says He created all life independently after its own kind (GE 1:11-12, 1:21, 1:24-25, 2:19), not that He created a first life and then diversified it. Evolution postulates that life evolved once and then somehow, miraculously survived long enough to figure out how to reproduce and diversify.
• God says He formed the first man directly from the dust (GE 2:7). Biological evolutionists want us to believe man evolved from apes, who evolved from smaller animals, who evolved from less complex life forms, who evolved from single-celled organisms, who evolved from inanimate/​non-living proteins.
• God says He formed the first woman directly from the first man (GE 2:22). This contradicts all secularly recorded human history, as no man has ever given birth. The closest thing is human cloning, but clearly that requires a lot of intelligence to pull off!

So why did God create things out of order? God is all-knowing (Psalm 139:1-4, Hebrews 4:13), never changing (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, James 1:17), and cannot lie (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18) therefore He must have done it on purpose. I think He did it this way to discourage us from making up dumb stories like "everything came to be on its own" and so we would not even think about blending those ideas with His word (Isaiah 45:5-12, Romans 1:21-22, 1 Corinthians 1:19-21). And just as important (if not more) there's a recurring theme in scripture that God cares a great deal about getting credit for what He did/​does (Exodus 20:4-6, Deuteronomy 6:14-15, Isaiah 42:8, John 8:50, John 11:4).

» ICR: Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
» AIG: Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias
» AIG: Religion and Evolution

There is no scriptural basis what-so-ever for a local flood. There is no way to read scripture and come to the conclusion that it was anything but a global flood. If you think it was local, that belief was 'fed' to you. Read it yourself in Genesis 7:19-24.

• The concepts of 'highest on earth' and 'every living thing on earth' are found six times in those five verses. This would be gross negligence if the author didn't mean what he wrote.
• God himself, speaking to Isaiah approximately 1,600 years later, reiterates the flood "covered the earth" in Isaiah 54:9.
• The apostle Peter believed it was accurate, as stated in 2 Peter 3:3-7.
• From another angle, after it's all done God promises in Genesis 9:11-16 never to do again what He just did. Not because He was wrong to have done it the first time, but because of His plan. This is what the rainbow was (and still is) a sign of remembrance of. If He was promising never to allow/​send a local flood again, then He's a liar. If He was promising never to send a global flood again (like He explicitly said when He mentioned "all life on earth" twice) then He's truthful (John 3:32-33).
• For external confirmation consider the Biblically sound explanations for the origin of the grand canyon, the ice age, fish fossils in the middle of deserts & on top of mountains, etc.

» Canyon Ministries
» Grand Canyon-what is the message?
» Where Does the Ice Age Fit?

Nope. It is only implied (read in) by compromisers. Though really, since the universe was built mature to begin with, there is no direct observable evidence of its actual age, anywhere.

While this webpage has made the case that we have perfectly good reason to believe the world and the universe are relatively young, there is no physical evidence for a specifically six-day supernatural creation outside the eyewitness testimony recorded in the Bible. But that shouldn't be surprising since the natural cannot be used to prove nor explain the supernatural. This is why secular humanists and atheists have such a hard time with it. But the Bible and the Torah have, for thousands of years, firmly declared a single worldwide flood about 2000 years before Christ. And there is plenty of observable evidence of this worldwide flood. If the flood described in the Bible was true, and the Earth is young as the Bible describes, then it's very likely that the way the Bible describes creation (six days) was accurate too. This is why atheists won't allow anyone to believe in the flood of Noah's day, nor that the Earth is young, lest we draw the obvious conclusion. Remember, the origin of the earth and the universe are non-observable and non-repeatable, which means the scientific method cannot be used, which leaves scientists with a feeling of helplessness they attempt to compensate for with arrogance. The origin of the physical world is more a matter of faith than of science, based on:

1. our acceptance or rejection of eyewitness testimonies in the Biblical text,
2. our acceptance or rejection of supernatural corroboration of Biblical truths that still occur today, and
3. our willingness to believe in (and believe the word of) a divine Creator to whom we are accountable.

1. Jesus clearly confirmed that (1) creation was recent and (2) Adam and Eve were real historical people when He was defending marriage and said these first two people existed at the beginning, not billions of years after the universe and Earth had come into existence (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6). If the universe were billions of years old then the entire span of human existence has all occurred in the last 1% of universal time (or "at the end", not the beginning). And He didn't say "at the beginning of man," He just said, unqualified, "at the beginning."
2. Jesus named Abel in Matthew 23:35 when criticizing some self-righteous leaders, referring to Abel as a truly righteous person. (Abel was born in Genesis 4:2 to Adam and Eve then died in Genesis 4:8 at the hand of his older brother.)
3. Jesus referred to Noah as a real historical person, the Flood as a real historical event, and that it killed everyone alive (besides the 8 on the Ark) in His teaching about the "coming of the Son of man" (Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27).
4. Jesus warned the Jews of his day to believe what Moses wrote (John 5:45-47). Moses is widely recognized as writing the first five books of the Bible, including Genesis and Exodus, which is where the literal account of creation and the Ten Commandments (referenced above) are found. If he had to warn the Jews of his day to believe in special creation then it is no surprise we have to remind people today. (By the way, I blogged about Moses being the author of the Torah, here.)
5. Jesus criticized His people a couple of times on their ability to understand the natural world around them while maintaining ignorance of the supernatural (especially when it was staring them in the face). Specifically, Luke 12:54-56 and Matthew 16:1-4, which aren't completely unrelated to Matthew 23:13 and 27. As Spock said in Star Trek VI, "logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end," or in other words, we need more than pure science to understand our existence, our place in the world, and secure our eternal future.

» AIG: Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture

Yes! Consider these references, besides the dozens mentioned above.

• In the Old Testament, a six-day creation was explicitly cited and was the only explanation for the 4th of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11) which were given to Moses written in stone by God himself. If you do not think he was being literal, read his elaboration in Exodus 31:12-17.
• Moses gave an extremely important discourse about God in Deuteronomy 4-6 (with the 10 Commandments in the middle) and he reiterated God made man in a single day in Deuteronomy 4:32.
• Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, confirmed Adam was formed directly from dust, not apes (1 Corinthians 15:47).
• Paul also aluded to Adam while trying to persuade a bunch of Greeks of this new "strange idea" in Acts 17:26.
• Peter, who was one of the apostles, said the flood was absolute and exactly 8 people were saved (1 Peter 3:19-21).
• Peter named Noah, the flood, and the exact number of people on his Ark in 2 Peter 2:5.
• Peter also warned his friends that in the last days people will deliberately forget that "in the beginning God created" and that He "brought the earth out from the water" (2 Peter 3:3-7). In verse 4 of that same passage, he prophesied (in a critical way) the paradigm of Uniformitarianism with his comment "all things continue as they were from the beginning." (Uniformitarianism is a belief that the present is the key to the past and slow, small, consistent changes are responsible for all forms of evolution from astronomy to biology to geology.) Jesus's brother made a similar prophecy (referring to naturalism rather than uniformitarianism) in Jude 1:18-19.
• The author of Hebrews was unanimously considered an expert in Jewish theology and history and he refers to the literal day seven, not a vague "end of creation" (Hebrews 4:3-4).

Here is a small list of reasons, in ascending importance...

• Evolution is the ultimate justification for racism, which quickly spawns eugenics, genetic engineering/​discrimination, abortion, genocide, etc.
• If we teach kids in schools that they evolved from apes which in turn eventually evolved from single-celled organisms which in turn came from inanimate sludge, then on what ground can you stand and tell them they may not murder nor have sex with whoever and whatever they choose?
• If we tell people to ignore the first few chapters of God's word how can we tell them when He says "do not murder" that He really means it? (John 3:12)
• The most important thing in the universe is what we believe (Romans 10:9-10). What you believe dictates how you behave.
• If we have no Creator then we have no accountability.
• Taking God's word seriously matters because He gave His recount of accurate history as an example of why He's God. Rewrite history and we pretend we can take His place: Isaiah 44:7, 50:10‭-‬11.
• The meaning of everything comes from its origin. So the meaning of life is wrapped up in this question. (Only the originator, his superior, successor or equal may change the meaning of a thing after it has been created but God has none of these.)
• The Bible says that death entered the world through Adam & Eve's sin (Genesis 2:16-17,3:6) and that redemption/​salvation only comes from Jesus' sacrifice (Romans 5:17 & 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Denial of half of this principle is denial of the whole. Or put another way, how can you take God at his word when he describes the plan of salvation if you cannot trust his description of creation? Charles Templeton may be the most famous example in the 20th century and James Watson is another more recent example.
• While creation is not a matter of salvation, it's about the perception/​trust of the next generation in the word of God. People (not just children) see the hypocrisy of putting your salvation on John but reinterpreting Genesis and they will tune you and God out.
• The underlying question here is not where we came from, but can we take God at his word, period? (By definition of being God, our answer should be "yes".)

This time let's take another angle. Aside from truth mattering (John 8:32), there is another important element. God cares about His reputation:

• Exodus 9:16  hub
• Leviticus 19:12  hub
• Deuteronomy 18:20  hub
• Psalms 46:10  hub
• Psalms 106:8  hub
• Isaiah 46:8-10  hub
• Ezekiel 36:22-23  hub (back story Ezekiel 22:2-16)
• John 12:27-28  hub
• Romans 2:24  hub

He's jealous of glory we give anywhere else:

• Exodus 20:4-6  hub
• Exodus 34:14  hub
• Deuteronomy 4:24  hub
• Deuteronomy 6:14-15  hub
• Psalm 78:58  hub
• Isaiah 42:8  hub
• Matthew 22:1-14  hub

Making up and believing stories, then teaching others these alternatives about how He could have done it, is insulting when He told us how He did it:

• Job 38:1-11  hub
• Job 38:31-36  hub
• Job 40:6-9  hub

We can't mock God without there being numerous consequences:

• Exodus 20:7  hub
• Deuteronomy 8:11-20  hub
• 1 Samuel 12:24-25  hub
• 2 Chronicles 32:15-23  hub (compare 2 Kings 19:28-37)
• Psalm 14:1  hub
• Psalm 81:8-16  hub
• Proverbs 14:34-35  hub
• Matthew 25:24-30  hub
• John 15:5-6  hub
• Romans 1:25-30  hub
• Galatians 6:7  hub

When Jesus was asked by the religious leaders of His day, what is the most important commandment in all the law, remember the response (Mark 12:28-34, Matthew 22:34-40). As James alludes to (James 2:19), loving anyone isn't supposed to be limited to believing in them, but also believing them, and requires taking them seriously.